landscaper ate some exotic fruit from my orchard [closed]

Conversion

Conversion is an intentional tort consisting of "taking with the intent of exercising over the chattel an ownership inconsistent with the real owner's right of possession".

You need to prove that a) the person intended to take the pear and b) they took the pear.

If you can do that, then you are entitled to damages to compensate you for your loss. Courts don’t do “priceless” so you would need to put an actual monetary value on the fruit. Market value of a replacement would be your starting point. You might be able to get a small amount for the emotional damage, possibly of the same order as the market value, however, as that is not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the conversion, it seems very unlikely - damages are only what can be reasonably foreseen.

my question is can I hold this against the company as this was priceless to me as I was going to use this for a special ceremony.

The court would need to interpret the claim of pricelessness against the fact that you left the fruit outside, unguarded, unfenced, seemingly around a children's play area, and within the access of a strange workman who was not advised of its special value or importance.

Given that the workman was on the land lawfully and in that area of the property legitimately, and given the common practice of maintaining fruit-growing trees in a private garden without attaching value to the fruit and whilst being willing to distribute any fruit freely, I'm inclined to think this does not meet the criteria of a theft.

I would consider it the analogy of helping himself to tap water to fill his own bottle, or helping himself to a lollipop from a basket of them placed out, or plucking an acorn from a tree so as to throw it playfully at a colleague.

They are not necessarily actions to which a person should feel entitled, but they are also things that are generally permitted, and so may be done thoughtlessly.

As such I don't think it's something that could be "held against" the company in a substantial way.

You could certainly complain and express annoyance.

If the matter was pressed then I think a court would find the appropriation cheeky from a workman, and more important to set the principle that such appropriations from someone else's land are done at the risk of the taker having to make good if the owner is not minded to allow it.

But the valuation of any damages would be limited to the market value of the fruit or replacement in kind, not the sentimental value to you of the individual fruit which was consumed. So from the case you'd squeeze very little.