Orsman, Jessica2011-07-042022-10-272011-07-042022-10-2720102010https://ir.wgtn.ac.nz/handle/123456789/25291This paper addresses the liability of an occupier who finds goods on his or her premises, and subsequently destroys them. In the 2010 case of Robot Arenas Ltd v Waterfield, Mr Colin Edelman QC has introduced an exception for occupiers to avoid liability in conversion for doing so. The exception, based on the position of the occupier as an “unconscious bailee,” is examined, and justified as an acceptable undercutting of the traditional strict liability of conversion. The legal solution in the New Zealand context is then examined, where it might also be possible to apply a defence of contributory negligence to the tort. The paper concludes that the most desirable option for a New Zealand court addressing the same scenario would be to exclude contributory negligence, and follow the Robot Arenas exception. This way the proprietary purpose of conversion would be maintained.pdfen-NZConversionLiabilityText