Suppose B "converted" money entrusted to him by A. B then turns around and buys goods, say a car, from C using the converted funds.

A can sue B for conversion, of course. But can A sue C as the recipient of converted funds. Or can C (who didn't know that the funds were converted) use as a defense, I sold B a car for the money, your remedy is the car owned by B?


Normal rules are that you cannot have good title to a thing if, somewhere down the line, there was a thief who had converted that thing from its rightful owner.

There are exceptions, the relevant one here is a negotiable instrument, which includes cheques (unless marked "Not negotiable" - now you know what it means), stocks, bonds and ... money. The legal owner of a negotiable instrument is the person who has it, provided that person gained possession of it lawfully.

In your example, C gained possession of the money in a lawful transaction with B; A has no recourse against C. Contrast this where B stole the car from A and sold it to C: a car is not a negotiable instrument so C does not have good title, they must return the car to A and try to get their money back from B.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.