Opinion ID: 551885
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Conversion Claim Arising From The Rail Car Exchange

Text: 174 General Poly brought a separate claim against Allied for conversion based on Allied's allegedly wrongful appropriation of the two rail cars of off-grade resin which were returned. The district court directed a verdict in favor of Allied on this claim without any explanation of the basis for the ruling. See R. Vol. 41 at 4596. 175 In Kansas, as elsewhere, conversion is defined as an unauthorized assumption and exercise of the right of ownership over goods or personal chattels belonging to another resulting in some actual interference with the rightful owner's possession of property. Desbien v. Penokee Farmers Union Coop. Assoc., 220 Kan. 358, 365, 368, 552 P.2d 917, 924, 926 (1976). However, as General Poly concedes, there is undisputed evidence that General Poly's representatives consented to Allied's acquisition of the two cars. Although generally [o]ne who would otherwise be liable to another for ... conversion is not liable to the extent that the other has effectively consented to the interference with his rights, Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 252 (1965), it is well-established that [c]onsent to possession of a chattel obtained by fraud or duress is not effective to prevent recovery ... for conversion. Id. at Sec. 252A. 176 General Poly argues that the Allied representatives fraudulently induced General Poly's consent to the return of the two rail cars. However, as discussed above, General Poly did not present sufficient evidence to withstand Allied's motion for a directed verdict on the fraud claim. Consequently, General Poly's assertion of fraudulently induced consent must likewise fail. 9