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
Merryman, John Henry. Thinking about the Elgin Marbles: Critical Essays on Cultural Property, Art, and Law. London: Kluwer Law International Ltd, 2000.
It is often conceptualized that property is the rights of 'ownership'. In common law property is divided into real property, which is the interests in land and improvements there, and personal property, which are interests in anything other than real property. Personal property is divided into tangible property (such as a bike, car and clothse), and intangible property (such as bonds and stocks), which also includes intellectual property (copyrights, trademarks etc). The modern property rights conceive of possession and ownership as belonging to legal individuals, even if the individual is not a real person. Hence, governments, corporations and other collective forms of ownership are shown in terms of individual ownership.
Architecture by far, plays the greatest role in the book. The house itself causes the events in the book to unfold. Supposedly built in 1720, it has housed approximately 0.37 owners a year, most of who were traumatized in some way. William (Navy) and Karen Navidson, the current owners of the house, are included in this select group. Though they move into the house as an attempt to repair their marriage, it is what that ultimately drives them apart. The first sign of trouble is the appearance of a long, cold, dark hallway. The house, larger on the inside than it is on the outside, causes Navidson to investigate the house and serves as the catalyst for the destruction that follows.
The aim of this essay is to critically discuss how the law of passing off and trade mark law have common roots and therefore are, in many respects, similar. I will begin with a short brief history of trade mark law and the law of passing off. I move on to discuss the similarity between trade mark law and the law of passing off with reference to relevant case law and statutes. Although, passing off and trade mark law deal with overlapping factual situations, s 2(2) of the Trade Mark Act 1994 maintains passing off as a separate cause of action. When a trade mark is threatened by the actions of third parties the proprietor will bring an action for both passing off and trade mark infringement which both share many similarities. However, they are
To words meaning two different things have a way of relating to one another to create something new? Many things can be made to describe two simple words like ownership and identity. Ownership can be both tangible and intangible. When looking at how ownership relates to identity, people tend to look at aesthetic instead of how ownership builds moral character that leads to identity.
There are so many issues in regards to real estate. One of the most concerning issues seems to be Eminent Domain. Eminent Domain is the power of a national state or government taking a private property for public use. An example would be building roads, schools, malls, or even highways. Is Eminent Domain really being constantly abused? I believe so since i decided to write about this issue. The land can be taken with no argument as long as it is used for the "public good". That makes it ok some how. When the property is taken the government pays you a price that they believe is fair market value. Sometimes they are paying them more. People are practically being forced off of their land so their homes can be replaced by more expensive homes and bigger
Owners of real, intellectual and personal property each have the same rights under the law, whether it is a physical entity or a non-physical entity. “Ownership of real property is typically complicated than that of the personal or intellectual property since the law provides for different forms of ownership, which carry different rights (Roger, 2012). First, real property is regulated by federal and state statutes as well as common law. For example, a fee simple individual that has
Barney, a recently retired Deputy Sheriff in North Carolina, is plagued by a week of disastrous discoveries, in some ways likened to the tribulations of Job as recorded in the Biblical account. Not only is Barney’s ‘prime real estate in the North Carolina mountains’ being claimed by a former co-worker citing adverse possession rights, but he discovers that his beach-front home is being claimed by the city under eminent domain to make room for a Nickelodeon Family Resort. Furthermore, Barney’s truck is stolen by a former employee of a fine dining restaurant posing as a valet, only to be discovered at a classic car show a few weeks later. The current owner of the vehicle refuses to return it to Barney until he is reimbursed $5,600, the value of a car he traded to obtain the truck. As Barney’s attorney, and longtime friend, I have the responsibility of advising Barney of his legal position and subsequent rights, while also offering personal support as a Christian friend.
Ownership and self (identity) are commonly joined together under one thought: ownership can very well define a person’s identity. I believe that is to be true. It is possible to own something physically whether that is a phone, a computer, a car etc., or something that simply exists within our minds such as a thought (idea), a concept or whatever it may be. However, “To own” – a verb – doesn’t necessarily mean to own or have something, it also means to know something or that it is a part of you or “admit or acknowledge that something is the case or that one feels a certain way”- Google. Affluential philosophers have argued the various ways of how to express ownership and possession that shows its universality on this well rounded topic. It’s claimed that it builds up moral character and denounced by its undesirable and detrimental effects – good or evil. It is, in fact, that ownership and its intricacy builds both and individual self-comprehension and group- identity.
...y within the United States and personal property used predominantly outside the United States are not property of a like kind.
According to Locke’s theory, a commodity becomes the private possession of an individual who labors for it. Thus it is no longer a direct gift of nature: [A man] “that so employed his pains about any of the spontaneous products of nature, as any way to alter them from the state which nature put them in, by placing any of his labour on them, did thereby acquire a propriety in them” ( 360).
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.
The first point to note when analysing occupiers’ liability is that originally it was separate to the general principles of negligence which were outlined in Donoghue v Stevenson .The reason for this “pigeon hole approach” was that the key decision of occupiers’ liability, Indermaur v Dames was decided sixty six years prior to the landmark decision of Donoghue v Stevenson . McMahon and Binchy state the reason why it was not engulfed into general negligence, was because it “… had become too firmly entrenched by 1932 … to be swamped by another judicial cross-current” Following on from Indermaur v Dames the courts developed four distinct categories of entrant which I will now examine in turn.
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...
Intellectual property is information, original ideas and expressions of the persons mind that have profitable value and are protected under copyright, patent, service mark, trademark/trade secret regulation from replication, violation, and dilution. Intellectual property includes brand items, formulas, inventions, data, designs and the work of artists. It is one of the most tradable properties in the technology market.