In conversion cases, which of the following is NOT a valid example of interference?

In the context of conversion cases, the concept of interference revolves around the unauthorized control or handling of someone else's property, leading to a deprivation of the owner's rights. When determining a valid example of interference, the focus is on how actions affect the owner's rights regarding the chattel.

The correct answer indicates a situation where there is no malicious or wrongful intent to interfere. Accidentally damaging property with permission does not constitute interference in the sense of conversion because the damage occurs with the owner's consent, and thus, the person's control over the property was never unauthorized. This lack of intent and permission is key; conversion requires a wrongful act or intrusion upon the owner's possessory rights, which is absent in this scenario.

On the other hand, other examples listed, such as substantially changing the chattel, wrongful acquisition, and detention of the chattel, all imply a degree of unauthorized control or alteration that goes against the rightful owner's interests. These actions disrupt the owner's ability to control their property and can lead to a valid claim of conversion since they involve a trespass against the property rights of the owner.