Nature of land MCQs Flashcards
Question 1
A client has entered into a contract to sell their house. After exchange of contracts, the client seeks advice about whether they may keep the freestanding oven that slots in between two of the kitchen cabinets. The oven was purchased by the client’s late husband. The oven is not mentioned in the contract.
May the client remove the oven before completion?
A No, because the oven is likely to be a fixture due to the high degree of attachment.
B Yes, because the oven is likely to be a chattel due to the slight degree of attachment.
C Yes, because any item with sentimental value is always removable.
D No, because removal of the oven would cause the room to be unfit for use as a kitchen.
E No, because any item within a property is permanently part of the land and must not be removed.
Answer
The correct option is B.
The oven is freestanding and connected to the land only by its own weight and an electrical flex. The oven is likely to be a standard measurement and easy to remove and replace and therefore retains its character as a chattel.
The degree of annexation is slight and therefore options A and E are wrong. Whether an item is a fixture or chattel is determined by the two-stage test and not any sentimental value. Option C is therefore wrong.
Option D is wrong as a freestanding oven can be easily removed and replaced and does not form part of an overall architectural design.
Question 2
Last year a land owner sold part of their land to a buyer. In the conveyance (by deed) the land owner granted the buyer a right of way over the land owner’s retained land for the rest of the buyer’s life.
Which of the following best describes the interest that the buyer holds?
A A legal easement
B A legal lease
C A legal restrictive covenant
D An equitable easement
E An equitable lease
Answer
The correct option is D.
The interest is an easement as the facts state that the land owner granted a right of way. This has the characteristics of an easement. It is not a lease as no exclusive possession is granted. Options B and E are therefore wrong.
An easement is capable of being a legal interest but must comply with the criteria in s 1(2)(a) LPA 1925. This means that the easement must be granted for a period equivalent
to a fee simple absolute in possession (freehold) or a term of years absolute (lease). The easement must be granted forever or for a fixed duration. The easement has been granted for the buyer’s life and therefore does not meet this criteria. Option A is therefore wrong.
The easement can only be equitable. It is irrelevant that it has been created by a deed.
There is nothing in the facts to suggest that a restrictive covenant has been created and a restrictive covenant is not capable of being a legal interest. Option C is therefore wrong.
Question 3
A freehold land owner grants a tenant a lease for a term of two years at market rent. Nothing was recorded in writing and no fine/premium was paid.
Has a legal lease has been created?
A No, because a deed is required to create a legal lease.
B Yes, because a two-year lease is always capable of being legal.
C No, but equity may intervene and recognise an equitable lease.
D No, because no fine or premium can be paid for a parol lease.
E Yes, because the lease complies with the parol lease exception.
Answer
The correct option is E.
A lease is capable of being legal. In order to be a legal lease a deed is required. However, certain leases for three years or less do not require a deed and can be created informally provided they fall into the parol lease exception. Option A is therefore wrong in relation to the facts.
Which of the following options correctly describes the nature of proprietary rights in land?
The right is enforceable in personam and is capable of being enforced against third parties
All proprietary rights are ‘real property’ and all personal rights are ‘personal property’
The right is enforceable in rem and is capable of being enforced against third parties
The right is enforceable in rem and will always be enforceable against third parties
The right is enforceable in personam and will always be enforceable against third parties
The right is enforceable in rem and is capable of being enforced against third parties
t
This is correct. A proprietary right is enforceable in rem, which means use or possession of the right can be recovered by the right holder, they do not have to settle for damages. A proprietary right is also capable of being enforced against a third party, not just the original grantor of the right. Registration systems are in place, which new land owners can check, enabling a right holder to protect their right so that it will be enforceable.
In the official copies of a registered title, in which register would you find the details of any burdens on the land?
Charges register
Property register
Overriding interest
Absolute title
Proprietorship register
Charges register
R is a refuse collection and disposal company who recently entered into negotiations with W, the owner of a landfill site. W has offered R the opportunity to use the site. The first offer is a 12-month licence to use the site for a payment of £200,000. The second (alternative) offer is the grant of a 12-month lease of a specified part of the site for a payment of £225,000. In either case the maximum amount of refuse that R may deposit is 25 metric tonnes. Which of the following options correctly explains whether R should accept the lease or licence?
R should accept the lease because it would give R a personal right in the land
R should accept the licence because it is capable of being enforced against third parties should W sell the site
R should accept the lease because it will entitle R to sue for breach of contract should W breach the terms
R should accept the licence because it would give R a proprietary right in the land
R should accept the lease because it would enable R to recover use of the right to use the site if W subsequently tried to revoke the right.
R should accept the lease because it would enable R to recover use of the right to use the site if W subsequently tried to revoke the right.
This is correct. A lease is a proprietary right in the land. This means it is enforceable in rem, the right can be recovered. A licence is a personal right, which means the right cannot be recovered if W subsequently tried to revoke it, because a personal right is enforceable in personam.
