When A takes B's hat and wears it for three months before returning it, does this constitute conversion?

In the context of tort law, conversion occurs when a person intentionally interferes with another person's right to possess their property in such a way that it deprives the owner of their rights to the property. In this scenario, A's act of taking B's hat and wearing it for three months constitutes conversion because A exercised control over B's property without permission and for an extended period, depriving B of the use of the hat during that time.

The fact that A wore the hat for three months indicates a level of permanence and control that goes beyond a mere temporary borrowing or a trivial interference. Normally, a temporary loan would imply that the owner retains rights over the property, and it would be expected to be recognized and returned in a reasonable time frame. However, A’s extended use of B’s hat without consent crossed the line into conversion, as it infringed on B's ownership rights significantly.

Therefore, A's actions fulfill the criteria for conversion, making the response that this constitutes conversion the correct choice in this context.