FIXTURES Flashcards
In a Vendor and purchaser situation, how do you know what are fixtures?
- Usually the contract indicates what is a fixture.
- The seller loses the right to remove the fixtures once a binding contract of sale is signed
- What is considered a fixtures is determined AT THE DATE OF SIGNING A CONTRACT.
What is the general rule with Fixtures?
Holland v Hodgson
Whatever is attached to the land becomes part of the land.
What is the fixtures test and relevant case authorities?
- The degree of annexation
2. Object of annexation
How do you determine the degree of annexation?
- What is the connection with the land? Holland v Hodgson
2. What is the mode of annexation? APA v Coroneo
Degree of Annexation (first part of Test)
What are the presumptions concerning connection with the land?
- Where a thing is not attached to the land other than by it’s own weight, it is prima facie a chattel - Hulme v Brigham
- Where a thing is attached to the land, they are prima facie fixtures - Holland v Hodgson
Degree of Annexation (first test)
What is the rule concerning mode of annexation?
Can the item be easily removed without destruction to itself or the building - APA v Coroneo
What are the subtests of Object of annexation?
It is an objective test of whether a reasonable person would assume it is a fixture - Hodgson v Gorringe.
- Contemplated time that the object is to be fixed - APA v Coroneo
- Purpose for which that object was fixed to the land, whether it was for the better enjoyment of the land itself or for the chattel? - Leigh v Taylor
- Are there any community standards? - Reid v Smith
- Is the item integral to the design/house area? - Hawkins v Farley
Will any single test be adequate?
No, must combine the tests: National Australia Bank v Blacker.
What is the case of Holland Hodgson about?
Mason owned land which he built a mill. He mortgaged the land to the P.
Mason went bankrupt and could not pay his debts. The property automatically got transferred to an administrator upon his bankruptcy.The administrator immediately removed 400 looms from the mill and sold them
PP was unhappy and wanted full value of looms
Courts held: looms were fixtures. They were securely attached to land by nails and bolts and they could not be removed without causing injury.
They indicated that the intention was also relevant.
What is the case Hobson v Gorringe about?
P owned an engine that was subject to a higher purchase agreement.
Upon full payments it was to be transferred to the hirer.
A person hires the engine and installs it into his sawmill. The engine is attached to certain plates by bolts and plates which are then concreted. The person pays instalments in the hopes it will become his.
The D is a mortgagee, he lends money to Mr King under mortgage and the transfer of the fee simple in exchange for the mortgage
The D is then entitled to all fixtures whether affixed at date or subsequently affixed.
So the D is entitled to the engine.
The D did not know P included in the higher purchase agreement, a term that he was entitled to repossess the engine if The Person defaulted on the instalment payments.
Held: IT was a fixture and was subject to mortgage. The term of the contract did not allow recovery of engine.
The D was also a bona fide purchase without notice, for value.
The test of objective intention arises from this case
What is the relevance and facts of APA v Coroneo?
Coroneo owned a picture theatre.
He defaulted under mortgage and mortgage exercises power of sale. Issue is which items are fixtures (and hence can be sold) and which are not.
Held: switch board and generating machines were fixtures, but chairs were not.
Test created: whether the item is fixed with the intention that it remains there permanently, or for some temporary purpose?
What is the relevance of Reid v Smith?
There was a timber house built on brick piers, (at the time this was done to protect from white ants getting in).
The land on which the house was resting ON THE BRICK PIERS was sold.
Landlord wanted the house to stay. The subject intention of the builder was to remove the building.
Objective intention decided by the court was that the house was part of realty (fixture).
Courts held: the prevailing community practice and tastes and fashion of the day are a relevant consideration.
What is the relevance of Belgrave Nominees?
P got a subcontractor to do work. The contractor contracted with D and D installed and supplied air conditioning payment.
These were put on the roof and main parts of the equipment rested on the platform.
The chiller was CONNECTED TO THE WATER RETICULATION SYSTEM of the building.
The contract goes bankrupt and D is not paid. D comes in to remove air conditioning plants.
P says it is a fixture
Courts held: It was a fixture. The intention was that they were to be permanently affixed. Intention arose from connection to the water reticulation system.
What is the relevance of Hawkins v Farley?
In this case, the dishwasher was built into the kitchen cupboards.
There was also a shed erected on the land.
Under a will, woman left land to her children and husband got the residue of the estate.
Husband was unhappy and he removed the dishwasher and the shed
Courts held:
Both were fixtures.
The shed was bolted down to concrete blocks and was relatively permeant indicated by the intention to be permanent
Dishwasher had plumbing connections where dirty water would go out and clean water in. It could not be removed without damaging the kitchen and when it was removed, it left the kitchen plainly incomplete and the area of the floor was unsightly.
The general community standards would dictates this to be a fixture.
What is the law in Palumberi v Palumberi?
This concerned a television antenna.
The courts held: the television antenna was for the better enjoyment of the television not the swelling itself.
So it was held to be a chattel
