Land Law and Professional Advice - Essay Example

Since the completion of the sale agreement, various concerns have been raised, which are fully addressed to in this report. First, Miss Horrock in a letter dated 23rd January 2012, claims that a neighbour, Fred Furnace found some gold coins in the property which appear to be Roman. This raises the possibility of a treasure as defined under section 1 of the Treasure Act 1996. For the purposes of the coins, section 1(1)(a)(ii) read together with section 3(4) requires that, for a coin to fall under this Act, it must be one, which when found, is one of at least two coins found together.

It must be at least 300 years old and have a percentage of precious metal. Hence, it shall be necessary to establish these claims, which if true means that the coins found satisfies the requirements laid down in the Act and, therefore, amount to a treasure. With regards to ownership of treasure, section 4 and 5 apply. Section 4 states that the ownership of the treasure vests in the franchisee, if there is one, otherwise in the crown. Section 5 defines a franchisee and subsection 1(b) is relevant to this case.

It includes in the definition as successor in title who would have been the franchisee of the crown in a right of treasure trove for the place where the treasure was found. Therefore, the gold coins should vest in Poppy, who is the successor in title to Victor Majelin. . This raises the question of fixtures and chattels on land. It is trite law that fixtures are part of the land while chattels are not. It shall, however, be necessary to ascertain the terms of the sale agreement. If the agreement show that only land and nothing else are being bought and sold, the purchaser buys everything affixed to land such as buildings, fences and trees (Drake et al 2007).

If the vendor does not intend to include a certain fixture in sale, this must be stated in the agreement. On the other hand, where purchaser intends to purchase chattels, the intended chattels must be listed in the sale agreement. To ascertain whether an item is a chattel or a fixture, one has to check at the purpose of the annexation. If the object stood affixed for the enhanced enjoyment of the land, the object is likely to be a fixture, but if it were intended to be placed there for a temporary purpose or so that the property can be better enjoyed; it is likely to be a chattel.

An example includes; tapestries as held in Leigh V Taylor [1902] AC 157, or ornamental panelling as held in the case of Spyer V Philipson (1931) 2 Ch. 183. It is necessary to look at the degree of annexation in order to decipher the purpose. If the object cannot be removed without causing significant damage, it is more likely to be a fixture though this is not conclusive, (Drake et al 2009). In this case, it is clear that the garden water feature which was cemented forms part of the land. The same shall apply with regards to the old range cooker per the presumptions made under the 2nd schedule of the standard sale agreement.

With regards to the removable pebbles and a sprout, they are also fixtures with regards to their degree of annexation. Consequently she has