Conversion is the replacement of an asset that converts to another type of asset – usually at a predetermined price – at or before a given date. The conversion function is a derivative that is valued separately from the underlying security. As a result, an integrated conversion feature increases the total value of security. Denying property that has the right to demand it is a real conversion and not mere proof.     The rules of evidence in a conversion action are no different from those found in another case of disorder. The appeal is pending to justify the case. The following areas generally need to be defined: For example, suppose Jill has a $1,000 convertible bond from XYZ Corp. If the bond can be converted into 100 XYZ shares, Jill will likely exercise the conversion option only if XYZ`s share price exceeds $10. The change ratio or transfer price of a convertible loan is generally described in the confidence communication at the time the loan is issued. In a conversion action, it is not defensible that the defendant was not negligent, that the defendant acquired the property of the applicant through the applicant`s unilateral error, or that the defendant acted innocently and in good faith.
 Transformation as a purely civil injustice is distinct from both theft and unjust enrichment. The theft is clearly an act incompatible with the rights of another, and the theft will also be a conversion. But not all conversions are thefts, because conversion requires no element of dishonesty. Conversion is also different from unjust enrichment. If you claim unjust enrichment, the person who owns the property of another may still cause a change of position defence to say that he has unknowingly exhausted the transferred property. For transformation, there must always be an element of voluntary management of the property of another that is incompatible with their rights. If the employee agrees, he or she usually needs a conversion of salary from contract to rent to move from hour to wage. They are no longer related to the employee after he has been employed full-time. A conversion action is not based on knowledge or on the defendant`s intent.  The act of “conversion” must be a deliberate act, but does not require illegitimate intent and is not excused by diligence, good faith or lack of knowledge.  Fraudulent intent is not an element of conversion.
 The accused is responsible for the conversion, regardless of his intentions, caution or obvious belief that his unlawful act was just.    The existence of probable cause does not exclude liability.  A person may be held responsible for the transformation, even if he or she was reasonably wrong, if he or she believes that the facts would have a legal right to the goods.   The view that a conversion action is based only on material property that can be identified and in actual possession is based on a fiction that motivated the Trover act, namely that the defendant found the property of another who was lost.