1. Intent of Torts: Trespass
Intent to Intermeddle
Larcenous Intent
As an intentional tort, intent to intermeddle with our property rights over the copier is required. Since the call center has refused to return our laser copier this can help establish that they have certain purpose, intent, or design to intermeddle with our property rights over it(Snyder, 1992).
We do not have to prove that they had larcenous intent. Showing Intent to trespass against the copier is enough, and again they cannot use the defense that they were
mistaken about the ownership of the copier. In the case of them lying to our customers, we have to show that the call center intended to intermeddle with our business, which is the chattel in question (Snyder, 1992).

2. Remedies : Trover Measurement of Damages Fluctuation of Value Replevin
“In trover, the damages are usually measured by the value of the item at the time of the loss” (Snyder, 1992).
“ In cases where the item is subject to market fluctuations, like stocks or other valuable commodities, some courts have allowed owners to recover the cost of replacement within the period of time a prudent person would have replaced the converted goods” (Snyder, 1992).
“Replevin, or actual return of the converted article, may be available under certain circumstances”(Snyder, 1992).

3. Remedies : Trespass Measurement of Damages Actual Damages Liability
Trespass of chattels is not a dignitary tort: which means we cannot recover nominal damages (Snyder, 1992).
Thus we can only recover actual damages, such loss of rental value, cost of repairs and any other damages short of a forced sale and not the market value of the copier. (Snyder, 1992).
“Liability is imposed according to the extent of the harm caused.” In the case of the lies that the call center has told our customers, this means we have to show exactly how much business loss resulted from the lies, which may be difficult to do (Snyder, 1992).

4. Relevant Case Law Price v. United States (Conversion)
CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions Inc.(Trespass)
Price v US : In the early 1980s Billy Price, a Texas businessman, purchased the rights in four paintings that were painted by Adolf Hitler and photographic archives that were compiled by Hitler's personal photographer, Heinrich Hoffman, and Hoffman's son from Hoffman's heirs. When the United States refused to deliver them to him upon demand, Price filed this suit alleging that the refusal constituted a tortious act of conversion. He obtained a nearly $8 million judgment against the United States. United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit later overturned the case based on the fact that the district court which rendered the verdict lacked subject matter jurisdiction, (US Court of Appeals for the Fifth District ,1995). Nonetheless this case demonstrates a claim for damages resulting from the tortious conversion of chattels.
CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions Inc.: In 1997 the District Court of Ohio, granted a motion for injection filed by CompuServe, a major national internet service provider at the time. The defendant, Cyber promotions, Inc (Cyber), was in the business of sending unsolicited ads (SPAM) to thousands of internet users, including CompuServe users. Even though CompuServe notified Cyber that they were prohibited from using its computer equipment to process and store the SPAM, and even tried to block them, Cyber only increased its tortuous activity. The court held that the SPAM took so much disk space that it made resources unavailable to subscribers, and thus diminished the value of CompuServe’s business by causing customers to cancel their accounts. Cyber’s trespass intentionally impaired the value and condition of the CompuServe’s chattel (US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, 1997).

5. References
Snyder, J. W., Jr. (1992). Outline for torts. FiddLaw.com. Retrieved January 27,
2009 from
US Court of Appeals for the Fifth District (1995, November 20).Price v. United States, 69 F.3d 46. Retrieved January 27, 2009 from
US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (1997). CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions Inc. Retrieved January 27, 2009 from