There is uncertainty surrounding the law in regards to the ownership of property and proprietary estoppel. This paper will deal with these issues by analysing two cases that involve these questions. It will first address Jack’s case and whether the two objects in question are chattels or fixtures; then, it will examine a Laurence’s case and whether he can rely on proprietary estoppel or not. By dealing with the two cases, this paper will clarify questions of what constitutes a chattel or fixture, and in what situations proprietary estoppel may apply.
Jack’s Case
A fixture is an object that is considered part of the land, whereas, a chattel is an object that is typically not fixed to the land. In the present case, Jack purchased a house from Val. Jack realized that some of the objects he considered part of the property was missing and wants to know who these objects belong to. In determining whether an object is a fixture or a chattel depends on according to Berkley v. Poulett , the degree of annexation of the object to the land and the purpose of the object’s annexation. The degree of annexation test “dictates that the greater the degree of annexation, the more likely the object is a fixture” , although there are some exceptions to this rule. An object that is resting on its own weight does not require any degree of annexation and may be considered a fixture depending on its purpose. The purpose of annexation, and more important part of the test, considers the purpose as to why the object is annexed to the land. If the object is annexed for the purpose of enjoying the object itself, it is considered a chattel; whereas, if the object is annexed for the purpose of enjoying the property as a whole, the object will be considered a ...
... middle of paper ...
...e, the bronze statues are fixtures because they are part of the architectural design of the property, whereas the wardrobe is a chattel because the purpose of its annexation was to stabilize it so it could be enjoyed. In Laurence’s case, he is able to rely on proprietary estoppel to prevent Wanda from selling the property to Matt because he relied on Wanda’s acceptance of his offer and suffered a detriment by investing £20,000 into the property because of the mistaken belief.
Works Cited
Berkley v Poulett [1977] EGD 754
Botham v T.S.B. Bank plc [1997] 73 P & CR D1
Coombes v Smith [1986] 1 WLR 808
D’Eyncourt v Gregory (1866) LR 3 Eq 382
Dillwyn v Llewellyn (1866) 4 De GF & J 517
Leigh v Taylor [1902] AC 157
Sayles, Victoria. Land Law. 3rd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Thorner v Major [2009] 3 ALL ER 945
Willmott v Barber (1880) 15 Ch 95
In Thomas Carew’s country house poem “To Saxham” the speaker describes the prosperity of the estate and the experience people would have within it. The speaker in the poem creates the distinction that the people who remain on the exterior of the estate are poor and in a less prosperous position than those who live on the estate. The contrast that the speaker makes throughout the poem suggests there is a larger idea being formed by Carew in regards to the relation of spaces and social structure. The tone throughout the poem praises the estate and they way it provides for its inhabitants and guests, while suggesting that there are enough resources to accommodate unexpected guests. The speaker proposes that there is potential mobility between individuals that remain outside the estate
Merryman, John Henry. Thinking about the Elgin Marbles: Critical Essays on Cultural Property, Art, and Law. London: Kluwer Law International Ltd, 2000.
Robert Nozick argues in his Entitlement Theory that there are three main topics in the justice of holdings: the acquisition of ‘un-held things’, the transfer of holdings, and the rectification of injustice in holdings.1 Nozick’s theory of what makes a transfer of holdings ‘just’ should be rejected for two key reasons and the rectification of injustice of holdings should be rejected for two key reasons.
Bonzi found a necklace while staying at a hotel that is owned by Alpha Corp, and the question, “to whom does the necklace belong?” is asked. First of all, the type of property involved, from a legal perspective is personal property, and more specifically, tangible personal property because the necklace is a physical object that can be moved and touched. In determining who the necklace belongs to, the legal decision that needs to be made in relation to Bonzi is: who has legal ownership of the necklace?
What does it mean to own something? The book definition of "own" is, "something belonging to oneself or itself." (Dictionary) Ownership is a common part of life today in many forms. We own all kinds of stuff and continue to get more. But what does it really mean to own something? Does it mean you payed for it so therefore it's yours? Does it mean you have some kind of connection to that certain thing so you believe to have ownership over it? Or does it even mean that by using the tern "ownership", you own something? People believe ownership to mean many different things. Personally, I believe that it means it is something close to you that belongs to you. I also think that ownership has a lot to do with how you feel about that certain thing. People have many different views and ideas of ownership today.
Ownership has long affected our sense of self and worth. It has changed with the times but still affects us the same way as before. The famous philosopher, Plato, thought that “owning objects is detrimental to a person's character”. By examining the different types of ownership and evidence from historical to contemporary society, ownership correlates with one’s sense of self by either improving or diminishing it.
According to our textbook, “Real property constitutes land and all things permanently attached to it (i.e. a house, a tree or coal below land). Intellectual property such as copyrights, patents and trademarks is personally owned but generally treated as a separate form of property by the law. Personal property is characterized by its portable nature; it can be carried from place to place (i.e. tangible personal property or intangible personal property)” (Roger, 2012).
The need for the law to recognise possessory and equitable interests in land under a system of registration of title is a contested issue in Australia. The term ‘title’ means the extent of ownership over property as recognised by the legal system. For the purpose of this essay, a system of registration of title means the Torrens title system. The protection of possessory and equitable interests in Western Australia will be discussed, with reference to the Torrens title system and real property. It will be argued that there is still a need for the law to recognise equitable interests in land, however, the Torrens framework does remove the need for the law for the law to recognise possessory interests, in particular the doctrine of adverse possession.
It has been generally acknowledged that the doctrine of proprietary estoppel has much in common with common intention constructive trusts, i.e. those that concern the acquisition of an equitable interest in another person’s land. In effect, the general aim is the recognition of real property rights informally created. The similarity between the two doctrines become clear in a variety of cases where the court rely on either of the two doctrines. To show the distinction between the doctrines, this essay will analyse the principles, roots and rationale of both doctrines. With reference to the relevant case law it will be possible to highlight the subtle differences between the doctrines in the cases where there seems to be some overlap. Three key cases where this issue surfaced were the following: Lloyds Bank Plc v. Rosset (1991), Yaxley v. Gotts (1999) and Stack v. Dowden (2007). This essay will describe the relevant judgements in these cases in order to show the differences between the two doctrines.
Intellectual Property Law used to only protect art, music, and literature, but because of technological development, Intellectual Property Law now also protects a greater variety of innovations including designs, inventions, symbols, discoveries, and words. The phrase “intellectual property” was first known to be used in the late 1700’s; however, it was not widely talked about, nor was the Intellectual Property Law in actuality commonly implemented. Intellectual Property Rights slowly gained more attention by mid-1800’s after the Industrial Revolution had taken place: more companies were created, competition between corporations became fiercer, and owning unique innovations were crucial to winning the competition. However, as Intellectual Property
As the curtain for Act 3 open, the audience sees Gwendolen and Cecily in the morning room at the Manor House. A manor house is the mansion of a lord or wealthy person and the morning room is a sitting room used during the daytime hours. The manor house is in the country. The stage is designed to resemble the morning room. I picture the morning room to be above the ground floor for Gwendolen and Cecily are ‘looking out into the garden’ through the window. The two women are gazing out the window and examining the two men. The morning room will be quite similar to the ‘luxurious and artistically furnished’ room of Algernon’s flat located in the city. Knowing the Cecily is wealthy, evident on page 60 when Jack states Cecily has ‘hundred and thirty thousand pounds in the funds’, a number of assumption can be made of the morning room. Cecily’s father, the man who adopted Jack, must have been wealthy and prosperous. Upon his death, all his wealth might have been passed down to Jack and his daughter Cecily. Therefore the manor house, and the morning room, might be attractively designed, capacious, and well furnished. Since the morning room is a sitting room, there will be chairs and sofas. Sophisticated, historical showpieces might be seen on stage as the two women peer out the window. Elegant lamps and teapoys might be present. The window through which the two women are gazing through will be closed; light through the window might serve to illuminate the morning room. Books, paintings and various other luxurious objects might be present to indicate Cecily’s economic well-being.
the next. In this way, when Chuck sells his land in the 3 plots, each
it must be said, look at all of these questions in the light of what
This memorandum serves to analyze the arguments put forth by Kelo v. City of New London, concerning the constitutionality of the takings of property by the City of New London for economic development. Specifically it will look at the arguments made in the case about whether the attainment of private property by the City of New London for the purpose of economic development that would support private development meet the public use requirement of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment as applied to the states. This memorandum will first give the facts that lead to the case, followed by an analysis of the majority opinion and concurring opinion, then the dissents will be analyzed, and finally two lessons learned for the case will be identified.
The courts of England and Wales acknowledge that the above must be something of value, in order to amount to consideration. A valuable consideration in the perspective of the English La...