Question 1 (75 marks) Last month, four friends, Rachel, Monica, Essay

Question 1 (75 marks) Last month, four friends, Rachel, Monica, Phoebe, and Joey acquired the freehold estate to Central Farm fr - Essay Example Moreover, in any contract for the sale of freehold land, there is a presumption that the contract will automatically include everything which legally constitutes â€Å"land†4. Accordingly, whether or not Barry was entitled to remove the sign depends on whether the sign can validly constitute land or whether it constituted a chattel, which doesn’t fall within the scope of â€Å"land†5. The classic definition of a fixture is anything which is physically (but not necessarily legally) removable and makes a permanent improvement to the land6. Conversely, a chattel is an item brought onto the land, which doesn’t become part of the land7. The general rule regarding fixtures is that whatever is attached to the soil becomes part of the soil8. In determining whether the sign is fixture or a chattel, it will be necessary to apply the two factual tests as extrapolated by Blackburn J in the case of Holland v Hodgson9, namely the degree of annexation test and the purpos e of annexation test. The degree of annexation test requires that the object be fastened to or connected with the land in some way for there to be a presumption that it is a fixture10. For example, in the case of Hamp v Bygrave11 it was held that patio lights that were attached to the wall of the house were fixtures. Moreover, if an object is not fixed, but merely rests on its own weight, there will be a presumption that it is a chattel12. If we apply this by analogy to the current scenario, the sign had hung from a post, which if resting on its own weight will lead to a presumption of it being a chattel. However, the presumption can be rebutted on the basis of the purpose of the annexation test. In the case of Elitestone Limited v Morris13 Lord Clyde asserted that this test involved a consideration of â€Å"the purpose which the object is serving and not the purpose of the person who put it there14†. As such, the test is objective and is concerned with the intention of the p erson who put the object on the land. It further requires the overriding purpose of the object being the enhancement and enjoyment of the land to make a permanent improvement to the land, in order for it to be a fixture15. If we apply this by analogy to the current scenario, we are not aware of the terms of the contract of sale between Barry, Rachel, Monica, Joey and Phoebe. If the contract expressly provided that the sign would remain as part of the land as a condition of sale, then removal by Barry will be in breach of contract. Alternatively, if the sign is part of the land, Barry did not have a right to remove it and Rachel, Monica, Phoebe and Joey would be able to request a return of the sign16. However, if the sign rests on its own weight, then the parties will have to rebut the presumption by demonstrating that the sign was intended to enhance the enjoyment of the land. If this can be established, the sign will form part of the land and the parties will be able to recover the sign from Barry. 2) Whether Alan is entitled to remain in Unit 2. The extent to which Alan’s rights are enforceable will depend on the nature of his rights and the enforceability of interests under the Land Registration Act 2002. If we firstly consider the factual scenario, Alan argues that he has been using Unit 2 since 2007 and pays a yearly â€Å"occupation fee†. This creates a degree of ambiguity as to whether his alleged right to use the property constitutes a licence or a lease. If the