This website uses cookies to ensure you have the best experience. Learn more

Ownership Of Property & Proprietary Estoppel

1815 words - 7 pages

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 fixture. In Botham v. TSB Bank plc , the court expanded on the degree and purpose of annexation test by including additional factors. The considered: whether and is part of the design of the building; the movability of the object; the lifespan of the object; the damage caused to the land when moving the object; and the type of person who attached the object to the land. By understanding the factors that surround the annexation test, it becomes clearer as to whether an object is considered a fixture or a chattel.
The bronze statues on plinths in the garden are fixtures; therefore, they are part of the property and belong to Jack. First, there is no degree of annexation, although, according to D’Eyncourt v. Gregory , where “objects have been positioned so as to improve the overall architectural design of the property, those objects may become fixtures, even where there is no degree of annexation” ; therefore, the emphasis shifts to the purpose of the annexation. Second, the purpose of annexation for the statues is to enhance the value of the garden, thus its purpose is to improve the design of the property. The fact that there are plinths in the garden suggests that the statues are intentionally installed in that area....

Find Another Essay On Ownership of Property & Proprietary Estoppel

Legal Issues in Estoppel: Promissory Estoppel in Relation to the Law of Contracts

1591 words - 7 pages It is commonly accepted that an estoppel is a legal doctrine which prevents a person from negating or claiming a fact due to that person’s prior conduct. The doctrine of estoppel has been applied for years and different forms of estoppel have been established. For the purpose of this essay, I will predominantly concentrate on promissory estoppel in relation to the law of contracts. This essay will be approached by discussing the issues of pre

Explain the rule known as "The Rule in Pinnel's Case" and how it impacted upon the doctrine of consideration

2267 words - 9 pages traditional doctrine of estoppel, limited as it was to representations of existing fact, was extended to apply to representations (or promises) future intention by the comments of Denning J in Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd (1947) KB 130. Because of this extension of the doctrine to apply to promises of future intention or future conduct, it is called "promissory estoppel" It follows that, if Foakes v Beer came before


4144 words - 17 pages doctrine. A good example will be the case of D&C Builders v Rees25 where Ms Rees, knowing the financial situation of D&C forced them to accept 18 --, ͚Proŵises BiŶdiŶg iŶ the AďseŶĐe of CoŶsideratioŶ- Estoppel͛ <> accessed 30 December 2011. 19 Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877) 2 AC 439 20 Central London Property Trust Ltd v

Contract Law Consideration

5924 words - 24 pages doctrine. A good example will be the case of D&C Builders v Rees25 where Ms Rees, knowing the financial situation of D&C forced them to accept 18 --, ͚Proŵises BiŶdiŶg iŶ the AďseŶĐe of CoŶsideratioŶ- Estoppel͛ <> accessed 30 December 2011. 19 Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877) 2 AC 439 20 Central London Property Trust Ltd v

Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel

1142 words - 5 pages cases relevant to the case of Richard and Ernie is Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130, from which the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel originated. The Court held that part of money as requested by the plaintiff, could be recovered. According to Lord Denning, if the plaintiff asked to claim the whole sum of money, he would fail to recover the money even though the defendant did not provide any consideration. It


1497 words - 6 pages their promise to the party who relied and acted upon the promise. When the doctrine is established, a promisee may have a shield against the promissors claim even though the promissor did not give any consideration. Promissory estoppel is an exception to the general rule which eliminates the requirement of consideration within a contract. This was seen in the famous case of Central London Property Trust v High Trees House Ltd. The plaintiffs

Contract Risk and Opportunities Memo - Span Systems

1321 words - 5 pages relations. We expect C-S to feel comfortable discussing changes to the program and complete confidence asking the new programmers for suggestions. Span System needs to maintain full control of proprietary information until full completion of the project and payment. By allowing C-S to participate in the selection process and completely involved and included in Span System activities with their project. We are providing C-S the control and ownership


2054 words - 9 pages married couples are treated in the event of a relationship breakdown with regards to ‘real property’. Currently, cohabiting couples have no legal rights to ownership of each other's property. If a cohabiting couple separates, the courts have no power to override the strict legal ownership of property and divide it as they may do on divorce or dissolution of a civil partnership. However it is worth noting that the Child Support Act 1991 and the

Case Scenario: Grocery, Inc

2325 words - 9 pages of goods is the transfer of ownership to tangible personal property in exchange for money, other goods or the performance of services. The law of sales of goods is codified in Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code While the law of sales is based on the fundamental principles of contract and personal property it has been modified to accommodate current practices of merchants. Therefore, the situation depends on whether or not a contract is for

Discuess about Pimmel's Law and how this problem involved in consideration

2607 words - 10 pages helpless when their debtors break the promises they made before. However the implement of promissory estoppel solved this problem. The modern promissory estoppel could be found in the case Central London Property Trust v Hign Trees House Ltd. This case is described as follow:In 1939 the Central London Property Trust had a block of flats to lease; the Hign Tree was to sublet the flats to individual tenants and profit form that exercise. However Hign

Law of Contract

2119 words - 8 pages full satisfaction of the whole amount. It has now become the only true exception to the doctrine of consideration. The case of Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House, obiter by Lord Denning stated that promissory estoppel is invoked where one person (A) makes to another (B) a clear and unambiguous representation of fact intending that the other (B) act upon it, if the representation turns out to be

Similar Essays

Ownership Of Self And Property Essay

1533 words - 6 pages living organism to survive without owning anything. From insects to mankind, owning some sort of property, whether tangible or intangible, is our way of surviving. As the most complex of all living organisms, our expression and demands towards property and ownership vary numerously (LeFevre 1). In the “American Dream”, one of the main ideals is to be able to own a home or land. In August 2013, President Obama addresses the issues of modern economy

The Relationship Between The Constructive Trust And Proprietary Estoppel

1199 words - 5 pages property. Proprietary estoppel is a legal principle which prevents someone, who has led another to believe in a particular state of affairs from illegally going back on the words which led to their belief. It arose in the case of Dillwyn v Llewelyn (1862), where a son spent £14,000 on building a house on the land with his father approval and promise that he would be in charge of that land but later found out that his father did not leave the

Gillett V. Holt Essay

2974 words - 12 pages legal rights.' (McGhee, 2000, p.637) In the absence of a written agreement, estoppel acts as an evidentiary tool with which the courts can help ensure fair interaction in property dealings. Proprietary estoppel is a method by which informal arrangements are recognized as being capable of creating proprietary interests. Given that it lies within the domain of equity, the case law indicates a great flexibility in its

Laws Regarding The Estate Of Those Deceased

2139 words - 9 pages Property Act 1925. Nevertheless, the cases below illustrate the successfulness of the claimants under resulting, constructive trusts and proprietary estoppels and what remedy will they have under each head. We need to look at the purchase money resulting trust; whether an intention arises from the purchase money we need to know what is sufficient to be regarded as purchase money and what time does the intention derived