Maudsley and Burn's Land Law - Essay Example

Download file to see previous pages The Law Society Conveyancing Protocol requires in general that the vendor provides advance notice of any or all fixtures that he or she intends to remove from the property upon giving up vacant possession. If no such warning is provided the purchaser is entitled to assume that the fixtures are part and parcel of the purchase price. A conveyance for the sale of land is assumed to be inclusive of all things that form a part of the land unless it is specifically excluded.4 Fixtures are generally considered to be a part of the land if they are annexed to the land or the building in a manner that can be deemed substantial.In Holland v Hodgson [1872] LR 7 CP 328 Blackburn J determined that a chattel is a fixture if it cannot be removed from the property without causing damage.5 In Deen v Andrews [1986] 1 All ER 262 it was held that if an item was attached to land by its own weight it would be deemed a chattel and not a fixture. Applying these tests to the Green’s case the items removed were fixtures. The ferns were not supported by their own weight and were attached to the land. The arch, carpets and the hot tub were also not attached to their own weight. It is assumed that these items all required severance from the land to a degree that altered the value of the property and thereby causing some residual damages. Moreover, Brown’s actions were not only inconsistent with the Law Society’s Conveyancing Protocol, it was consistent with Section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925 which mandates that unless otherwise expressly agreed the fixtures are to run with the land. It is unlikely that the fountain which was described as ornamental will be seen as anything more than a fitting in which case it does not run with the land and Brown was at liberty to take possession of it. Therefore, the Greens may recover all the items removed with the exception of the ornamental fountain.  ...Download file to see next pagesRead More