Fixtures

Question 1

Fixtures

Answer 1

2+ objects that come together to form one object.

Question 2

Absorption

Answer 2

Greater object usually absorbs smaller one

Question 3

Main test

Answer 3

Could they have a separate existent, usefully? Could they be taken apart without damage?

Question 4

Re Davis

Answer 4

Bowling alleys are chattels. Consider the degree of affixation (how well fixed) and object of affixation (are they fixed for the betterment of the items as items or the land as land?)

Question 5

LaSalle v Camdex

Answer 5

Hotel carpets are fixtures. Items are prima facie fixtures if attached, but test can refute. If only attached by own weight, likely chattels. But then go on to consider degree and object of affixation

Question 6

Diamond Neon v Toronto Dominion

Answer 6

Pole in ground with attached sign. K said that sign would remain property of P and not be a fixture. Sucks –> court says it’s a fixture. Unless there is a new K that binds the new owners, K with previous owners doesn’t bind new ones. (Dissent - sign has a separate value and related to a specific occupant. it should speak for itself - if advertising specific occupant, chattel. if advertising land, fixture)

Question 7

L&R v Nuform

Answer 7

Machinery inside a specialized building are fixtures (attached to steady the fixtures, removal would be difficult). Other tools used to repair machines are also constructive fixtures

Question 8

Lichty v Voight

Answer 8

Mobile home on land. Had some structures attaching it to the land. Court can consider subjective intention of fixtures/chattels. Looked to subjective intention instead of object of annexation (Note - ON)