Chattel Is a Fixture Where It Has Not Been Attached to Land - Essay Example

RUNNING HEAD: IS IT POSSIBLE TO CONCLUDE THAT A CHATTEL IS A FIXTURE WHERE IT HAS NOT BEEN ATTACHED TO LAND IN ANY WAY BUT MERELY RESTS UPON ITS OWN WEIGHT Is It Possible To Conclude That A Chattel Is A Fixture Where It Has Not Been Attached To Land In Any Way But Merely Rests Upon Its Own Weight? Name Institution Date Introduction A chattel can be described as a property that is not fixed permanently within the boundaries of a real property. On the other hand a fixture is a term that defines anything that is attached to a building or Land and therefore becomes a part of the land by law. According to the law of property, land includes aspects such as the surface, constructions (buildings) or parts of the constructions’ and anything that is attached to land becomes part of the land as laid down by the Latin maxim,quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit . In practice, an important contention arises in relation to the ownership of items that are attached to the land, but would be argued as chattels. Scholars have therefore argued that there is a need to develop a distinction between items that can be described as fixtures and those that in reality are chattels when they merely rests upon their own weight. This particular paper therefore intends to analyze whether it is possible to conclude that a chattel is a fixture where it has not been attached to land in any way but merely rests upon its own weight. A chattel is not regard as a fixture unless it is annexed, connected or fastened to land. However a chattel that is fixed to land , is prima facie or slightly demanded to be fixture for instance in the Butterfield V Buckland (1820) case, a verandah that was fixed to land was declared a fixture based on the fact that is was attached to the land. When common law is applied, it is possible to conclude that a chattel is a fixture where it has not been attached to land in any way but merely rests upon its own weight. Common Law presumes that whosoever owns the soil, also owns everything beneath the surface and above the surface. In addition whatever is planted on the soil is basically part of the land. Consequently when common law is made applicable, any gold or silver found on the land belongs to the land owner. By statute this is the basic reason why states have the vested right to own every mineral that exists in the boundaries of the state. When common law is applied then the concept of a chattel resting upon its own weight does not exist, therefore a chattel is by law bound to be declared a fixture (Hepburn, 2001). According to Green et.al (2009), it can be concluded that a chattel is a fixture where it has not been attached to land in any way but merely rests upon its own weight. Green et.al (2009) argues that this fact can simply be argued based on the aim or purpose of the annexation. Green et.al (2009) argues therefore that if a chattel is attached to a land with an aim of improving it, or with an intention of designing or layouting it, then it definitely qualifies to become a fixture, and this is so even if the chattel rests upon the land merely by its own weight. For instance, in a case where stone statues are placed in a given piece of land with the intention of designing the piece of land, they are held as fixtures despite the fact that they rest upon the land merely by their own weight. The degree of annexation also supports the view that it possible to conclude that a chattel is a fixture where it has not been attached to land in any way but merely rests upon its own weight. According to Mau, (2006), if a chattel is securely attached or fixed to land, when it merely rests upon its own weight, it is still described as a chattel. However when a burden of proof is provided, then the land can be accorded the title of being a fixture. Mau, (2006), highlights that in most cases, the establishment of whether a good is a chattel or a fixture is influenced by the degrees in which the good is attached to the land. For instance, in the case of Holland v Hodgson (1872) LR 7 CP 328, where looms for spinning were attached to the factory floor of a stuff manufacture and a spinner, by their own weight. The attachment of the looms was considered to be fixtures of that particular property. This is due to the fact that the degree of annexation was created a sense of security for the floors of the mills. The looms were fixed on the floor of the mills through the nails which were tightened at the feet of the loom. As a result if the looms were to be detached or removed from the floor, then a serious damage would occur on the floor. As a result in despite of the fact that the looms rested upon their own weight they were still declared to be fixtures. Also in certain contexts when a chattel is not fixed to land and merely rests on its own weight, the chattel can be preluded or transformed into a fixture . This is because the legal right of the individual who was in the possession of the land also counts. For instance in a scenario whereby the individual who lawfully possessed the chattel attached the chattel to the land in a manner that the chattel become a fixture , then the owner of the chatter may in the long run loss his or her property, as indicated by Pty Lts v Bennet(1928). The fact that pursuit, contract to which a chattel possession has been transferred, implies that the chattel is not to be perceived as a fixture, does not imply that the chattel will be prevented from becoming a fixture. The proof of the legal rights and intention to fix or annex the chattel on the land will definitely outweigh priority claims, although in such scenario there is need for clarity of the proof (Hepburn, 2001). On the other hand it is not possible to argue that a chattel is a fixture where it has not been attached to land in any way but merely rests upon its own weight. Gibson’s (2011), highlight that when a chattel is presumed to be resting upon its own weight , it definitely becomes a chattel as opposed to being a fixture. As a result the question of annexation does not arise in this particular context. In general the question of whether a chattel that has been affixed to land becomes a fixture is usually determined by the intention or the objective behind the fixing. For instance the intention may be that the chattel is to remain in the fixture permanently or for a substantial or indefinite period of time (Gibson’s, 2011). For instance in the Coroneo v Australian Provincial Assurance ltd(1938) the court concluded that the test would be examining the objective of the affixed with the aim that the fixed object was to permanently remain for a substantial or indefinite time or if the object was fixed with the objective that it shall remain in that particular position for a particular period of time. Another example is in the context where, a businessman decides to fix looms on the floor of a mill business, as fixtures, with the objective of enhancing the usefulness of the mill. A court can conclude that the looms on grounds of resting upon their own weight, become chattels as opposed to being a fixture. This is because the looms were specifically fixed with the intention of enhancing the usefulness and the value of the fixture (Hamilton, 2009). Also it is not possible to conclude that a chattel is a fixture where it has not been attached to land in any way but merely rests upon its own weight, on grounds of the intentions of the individual who affixed the chattel. According to Mau (2006) various tests have been conducted in order evaluate whether the intention of the individual who fixed the property matters in determining whether a chattel is a fixture or when its rests upon its own weight it can not be perceived as a fixture. Mau (2006) further highlights that the application of common sense therefore becomes necessary when determining whether the intention of the affixture does matter. For instance when an initial land owner constructs a house in such a manner that it is removable whether in sections or as a unit, then when common sense is applied then it may as well remain to be chattel , although it is temporarily connected to the main supporting surface which is the land . For instance a more recent verdict by the Australian high court was supported by the Reid v. Smith [1905]. The impending question was whether a normal dwelling house that was built upon a regular town allotment ,and the house was not fastened to the soil is to be described as chattel or as a component of the freehold. The verdict given by the Queensland Supreme Court was that the house was to be classified as a chattel. Although the decision was later reversed by the supreme court citing the lack of any attachments makes the house a to be part of the land, Mau (2006) highlights that the best verdict can be derived from the fact that in a situation whereby a chattel merely rests upon its own weight , is can best be postulated as a chattel but not a part of the land. Gibson’s (2011) argues that the relationship between a chattel and Land should not merely be perceived as one that is superficial. As a result in the context whereby a chattel rests upon its own weight, then the implication is that it will not customarily become a fixture, whatever its size maybe. This is based on the fact that things that rest upon land or are slightly attached to the land can actually be removed. As a result even huge erections such as granaries, mills, sheds and even walls if constructed upon the ground or land upon their own weight, they do not become fixtures. This is because they may be removed and may be taken away by the initial owner if their term of use is over. Christensen and Duncan (2009) further argue that although common law stipulates that whatever is planted on the soil is basically part of the land, it has never been decided that when a chattel rests upon a particular piece of land, then the chattel automatically qualify to be a freehold of the land. Conclusion From the above analysis what is evident is that the contention on whether it is possible to conclude that a chattel is a fixture where it has not been attached to land in any way but merely rests upon its own weight is an issue that is quite controversial. However based on the grounds of the various case laws, that were applicable on either sides of the debate, what is evident is that common sense is an essential aspect of in the making of crucial verdicts concerning whether a chattel is a fixture where it has not been attached to land in any way but merely rests upon its own weight. This paper concludes that all verdicts should be arrived at from precise application of the law. References Christensen, S and Duncan, D.(2009). Sale of Businesses in Australia. Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series Green, E and Henderson, N. (1988). Green and Henderson: Land Law. Taylor & Francis. Gibson’s (2011), Gibson's law notes. University of California. Hepburn, S.(2001).Principles of Property Law. Routledge. Hamilton, W.(2009). Is a Bison Squeeze Real or Personal Property? A Question of Law or a Question of Interpretation?. Case considered: Olson v. Angermeier. Mau, S. (2006). Legal principles: important topics for students and professionals. Hong Kong University Press. Read More