Land Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Land Law - Essay Example Hay hence making the deals legitimate. Rose has a claim on the farm even if she is not in the legal documents as part of the farm. According to the Law of property Act 1925, land ownership revolved around equity and Common law1. Additionally, land had a trustee when there was more than one owner. For instance, this case Major Thorn is the trustee and representing Rose2. 2) When Mr. Hay was buying the property, he bought it with all the rights hence making all other things that are in the farm belong to Mr. Hay. Major Thorn did not disclose to Mr. Hay about the previous lease agreement that he made with Mr. Wood in 2007 when he was selling the farm to Mr. Hay. This make Mr. Hay not bound to the agreement between Mr. Wood and Major Thorn. It is up to Major Thorn to sort out Mr. Wood because he did not disclose this information to Mr. Hay during the transaction. However, Mr. Wood can opt to buy the cottage because the lease agreement states that in case Major Thorn decides to sell the f arm, Mr. Wood can buy the cottage. The other reason as to why Mr. Hay is not legally bound by Mr. Woods rights is because Major Thorn had the registration title to the farm hence making it his without this other agreements coming to light hence it is only prudent that Major Thorn deals with Mr. wood without involving Mr. Hay in the resolution3. 3) In the case of Mr. Plant, Mr. Hay has every right to stop him from passing through his farm even if they have been using the shortcut for a long time. The reason for this is that everything in that particular land including paths, waterways, gardens, trees, mines and passages belong to Mr. Hay. These items pass automatically to the new farm owner after sale of the property. For instance, the path that Mr. Plant has been using as a shortcut to a local pub belongs to Mr. Hay and he cannot use it if Mr. Hay does not allow it. It is needless to itemize these things in the contract because they pass automatically after sale hence the use of the field by Mr. Plant will not bind Mr. Hay. 4) In the case of the ornamental bronze statue, Mr. Hay had every right to be furious. This is because when he was signing the contract with Major Thorn the statue was on the farm and Major Thorn did not disclose to Mr. Hay that the statue was not part of the agreement only to come and remove it after signing of the contracts. However, the statue was a fixture hence part of the land because the way Major Thorn installed it, the intention was never to remove it from that land. He used heavy lifting equipment in order to put the statue in position in fact causing a scene in the village. These are some of the strong signs that represent a fixture hence Major Thorn was not supposed to remove it after sale of the firm. One of the most famous cases in this particular area is Australian Provincial Assurance v. Coroneo. The main concern of the court was theater equipment for instance projectors, chairs and generator that were in the theatre. The co urt ruled that if any item was in the theatre and did not stand on its own weight then that particular object was a chattel and the burden of proof lied on the does not agree. However, if the object had an attachment to the property using any form of support then it was a fixture. Similarly, the burden of proof remains on the person who does not agree. In the case of Major Thorn, the elephant statue was part of the firm because it had attachment