The Case Of Alfie And Peggy

1845 WordsNov 4, 20148 Pages
The fundamental issue in the case of Alfie and Peggy is whether the items in question are a part of the land (fixtures) that can be acquired by Alfie in the convenyancing process, or whether they are an item of personal property (chattels) that belong in the hands of the seller Peggy . According to the Latin maxim ‘quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedid’# , Alfie can claim ownership rights to the items in question, if they are attached to the soil of the land. In other words, the items must all be fixtures rather than chattels, for Alfie to seek ownership. At face value, if an item is physically attached or annexed to the land, it is regarded as a fixture. It could be argued that the antique mirror in the Queen Victoria is therefore a fixture, as it has been ‘screwed’ into a part of the land, meaning Alfie can make a claim of ownership to it. However, physical attachment of an item is not enough to prove its fixture status. The degree of attachment, as described by Lord Lloyd in Elitestone Ltd v Morris#, is also important in determining whether an item is a fixture. For a fixture to exist, the level of attachment must be high. It could be argued that the action of screwing a mirror into the walls of the Queen Victoria is indeed a very high level of attachment, and even though items like the mirror may be easy to remove, as proven in Holland v Hodgson#, these items are still fixtures because of the scale of their attachment. The level of the attachment and the physical
Open Document