It is important that the issue is identified. The maxim "quicquid planatur solo, solo credit1" suggests that whatever is attached to the soil becomes part of it. The essence of this maxim leads to a fundamental distinction, the difference between fixtures and fittings/chattels (as well as items which are part and parcel of the land itself2). Furthermore, section 62 Law of Property Act 1925 includes fixtures are part of the 'conveyance of land', confirming the complex distinction of fixtures and fittings. The issue therefore is which category does each item come under? For clarity purposes it will be noted now, what will be concluded. If discovered we are dealing with fixtures then the purchaser (Yolanda) will be entitled to all fixtures attached to the land at the date of exchange of contracts3. In contrast to this if we find that items are fittings then David is entitled to sell the items on the internet or do whatever he pleases with them.
In the viewing there seems to be an oral agreement, yet no formal measure has been carried out. Generally, as part of a contract for sale of land parties will be required to complete a fixture, fittings and content's form before the transaction has been completed for the purchase of land. If this is the case then both parties are entitled to whatever was agreed to in the form. However, it will assumed that no form was completed as there appears be an oral agreement (which only creates moral obligation's but not legal ones). Furthermore no specific provision is mentioned in a contract. Therefore, in deciding if a certain item is either a fixture or a fitting two tests will be applied along side the common law. These two tests are referred to as the degree of annexation test and the purpose of annexation test.
First of all it must be considered whether the contents of the study were reasonably taken away by David. The study contained 'specific equipment and books.' The degree of annexation of these objects (although not certain), seem to be resting on there own weight, this will indicate that they are fittings4. However this is not always 'conclusive5' as Blackburn J symbolically explained with his example of a 'dry stone wall'6 items still may have intended to become part of the land. Therefore, the purpose of annexation can 'override'7 the degree of annexation test. In D'Eyncourt v Gregory8 it was established that objects emphasise the special nature of the design of the property and 'complete the architectural design' would be regarded as fixtures. Therefore it may be suggested that these items completed the design and therefore are fixtures. If this was the case then David would have to replace the items9. However, the decision by Scarman L.J in Berkley v Poulet10 suggests these is only an outside chance of this happening. It was decided that pictures, marble statutes and a sundial were to be enjoyed as items in themselves; they were not intended to create a permanent improvement to the land.
In the viewing there seems to be an oral agreement, yet no formal measure has been carried out. Generally, as part of a contract for sale of land parties will be required to complete a fixture, fittings and content's form before the transaction has been completed for the purchase of land. If this is the case then both parties are entitled to whatever was agreed to in the form. However, it will assumed that no form was completed as there appears be an oral agreement (which only creates moral obligation's but not legal ones). Furthermore no specific provision is mentioned in a contract. Therefore, in deciding if a certain item is either a fixture or a fitting two tests will be applied along side the common law. These two tests are referred to as the degree of annexation test and the purpose of annexation test.
First of all it must be considered whether the contents of the study were reasonably taken away by David. The study contained 'specific equipment and books.' The degree of annexation of these objects (although not certain), seem to be resting on there own weight, this will indicate that they are fittings4. However this is not always 'conclusive5' as Blackburn J symbolically explained with his example of a 'dry stone wall'6 items still may have intended to become part of the land. Therefore, the purpose of annexation can 'override'7 the degree of annexation test. In D'Eyncourt v Gregory8 it was established that objects emphasise the special nature of the design of the property and 'complete the architectural design' would be regarded as fixtures. Therefore it may be suggested that these items completed the design and therefore are fixtures. If this was the case then David would have to replace the items9. However, the decision by Scarman L.J in Berkley v Poulet10 suggests these is only an outside chance of this happening. It was decided that pictures, marble statutes and a sundial were to be enjoyed as items in themselves; they were not intended to create a permanent improvement to the land.
