Law · Law of Torts
In Fouldes v. Willoughby, why did the court rule there was NO conversion when the defendant put the plaintiff's horses on the shore?
Verified Solution4 OptionsUpdated: October 2026👁️1 View
Share:
- 1The plaintiff was a trespasser.
- 2The horses were wild animals.
- 3The defendant did not deny the plaintiff's title or abuse possession, he simply moved them.✓
- 4The defendant intended to steal them.
Correct answer
The defendant did not deny the plaintiff's title or abuse possession, he simply moved them.
Download Single Question PDF
Save this question and verified answer as a clean study sheet with live clickable link.
👥
Share with Friends & Study Groups
Challenge your peer aspirants on WhatsApp or Telegram to solve this question!
Online Test Series
Start Free Mock Test →Preparing for Law?
Practice full-length mock tests with real exam timers, instant score analysis, and all-India ranking.
Chapter Practice
Practice Law of Torts MCQs →Want more practice questions on Law of Torts?
Solve complete topic-wise tests with detailed solutions on GkGet.
Related Practice Questions
Recommended practice questions in Law · Law of Torts