WEEK 3 WORKSHOP Fixture or Chattel? 1. If the item is fixed to the land by more than its own weight, it is presumed to be a fixture - the onus lies on the person asserting otherwise 2. If the item is fixed merely by its own weight, it is presumed not to be a fixture - the onus lies on the person asserting otherwise Hollan v Hodgson Question 3.1 - What are the elements and effect of abandonment? The elements of abandonment are: (i) unilateral physical abandonment and (ii) intention to abandon (intention to give up the rights of ownership and possession to the goods) If these elements are present, the owner's title is divested, and property becomes capable of acquisition by a taker BUT contractual provisions may negative an intention to abandon Moorhouse v Angus and Robertson (No 1) Pty Ltd cf Re Jigrose Pty Ltd Question 3.2 - What is the principle by which ownership passes under the doctrine of accession? The attachment of a minor chattel to a dominant chattel where the identity of the principal chattel is not changed. The owner of the dominant chattel becomes the owner of the principal object which now includes the accessory chattel. ANSWER - Ownership of the accessory is transferred to the owner of the dominant chattel where 'necessity of the case' requires it Mckeown v Cavalier Yachts Pty Ltd Question 3.3 - What are the rules for determining ownership of commingled goods in circumstances where the mixing is accidental or deliberate? (1) Accidental mixing -> If contributions can be determined - tenants in common in proportion to contribution: Coleman v Harvey ® If not - tenants in common in equal shares: Buckley v Gross (2) Deliberate mixing -> As above: Indian Oil Corporation v Greenstone Shipping SA (Panama) BUT -> If fault involved (i.e., deliberate mixing without consent) - wrongdoer's interest subordinated to those of other contributor -> Uncertainty resolved in favour of the non-wrongdoer
® If loss suffered - damages claimed from the party at fault Spence v Union Marine Insurance Co Ltd; Big Top Hereford Pty Ltd v Thomas; Hill v Reglon Pty Ltd Question 3.4 What are the rules for determining ownership of a manufactured product in circumstances where the specification of raw materials was done lawfully or wrongfully? A person cannot be deprived of property owned except by the person's own voluntary act or by operation of law Silsbury v McCoon Question 3.5 Gerry is a grape grower in Stanthorpe who had a large crop of grapes nearly ready for harvest. He was required to travel overseas urgently to assist a sick relative and expected to be overseas for about ten days. He engaged Tom to look after the vineyard while he was away. He told Tom to maintain the vines and that he would commence harvesting when he returned. Tom is an amateur winemaker who could not resist the opportunity to try out his skills. Tom harvested a large quantity of grapes and