Question

PRINCIPLE: Any direct physical interference with the goods in somebody’s possession without lawful justification is called trespass to goods.
FACT: A purchased a car from a person who had no title to it and had sent it to a garage for repair. X, believing, wrongly, that the car was his, removed it from the garage.

• A. : can be held responsible for trespass to goods.
• B. : cannot be held responsible for trespass to goods as he was under a wrong belief.
• C. : has not committed any wrong.
• D. : None of the above.

Hint:

Mistaken belief is not a valid defence for trespass—what matters is unauthorized physical interference.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Even though X was under a mistaken belief, he interfered with goods that were not lawfully in his possession. The principle of trespass to goods does not require intent—it is enough that physical interference occurred without legal justification. Therefore, X is liable for trespass. \fbox{Final Answer: (A): X can be held responsible for trespass}