Case summaries: Commercial and personal property law PDF

Preview

Summary

Case summaries in table format....

Description

Case summaries: Prop law Topic

Case

Facts

Concept of property

Yanner v Eaton (1999) 166 ALR 258.

Fixtures and chattels

● Seats installed in a theatre Australian Provincial Co ● Was unclear whether they were fixtures or chattels Ltd v Coroneo ● What constitutes annexation? (1938) 38 SR NSW 700

Held

● Yanner used traditional methods to hunt two juvenile ● The word ‘property’ in the FCA wasn’t crocodiles for food comprehensive. Merely allowed the ● Charged under s 7 of the Fauna Conservation Act 1974 with govt to regulate hunting for wild killing them without a licence animals but not a property right that ● Successfully argued that native title entitled him to continue extinguished native title ● Mr Yanner granted the right to hunt ● Police appealed to the CoA and won ● Mr Yanner appealed to the High Court the crocs for personal, domestic or ● Polie argued that s 7 of the FCA made all animals in Qld the non-commercial communal needs, as property of the Crown, and that this extinguished native he had the right under the Native title Title Act, which was not extinguished by the Fauna Act. The rights were able to coexist. ● Could not be concluded that the statute granted full beneficial ownership or a possessory right over fauna to the Crown when it referred to ‘property’: this would lead to absurd results in the case of migratory birds, for example ● The Court also applied

Ratio/principles ● “Property does not refer to a thing; it is a description of a legal relationship with a thing” ● ‘Property’ does not necessarily mean full, beneficial or legal ownership ● It refers to a degree of power that is recognised in law as power permissibly exercised over the thing ● Usually it is treated as a bundle of rights ● s 109 of the Constitution: Where there is an inconsistency between state and federal laws, the federal law shall prevail. ● Fauna Act a Qld Act ● Native Title Act a Cth Act

● Test: whether it has been affixed with the ● If a chattel is fixed to land by more than its own weight it is, prima facie, a fixture; if it is held intention that it remain in position in place by its weight alone then, prima permanently or for an indefinite period facie, it is not a fixture. or substantial period of time or only for some temporary purpose ● Where a chattel is fixed to the land, if it is fixed ● They were fixtures because the with the intention that it shall remain for a long time or indefinitely, then it is a fixture; if not, intention was that they should remain then not a fixture. there permanently ● It is necessary to have regard to the intentions of the person fixing the thing at the time it was done. The intention with which a chattel has been affixed should be ascertained objectively, depending on the purpose for which, and the time during which, use in that fixed position is contemplated. ● If it is fixed so that substantial damage will be done if it is removed, then this supplies

supporting evidence that it has become a fixture Fixtures and chattels

Reid v Smith (1905) 3 CLR 656

Fixtures and chattels

● The plaintiffs, being the owners of two buildings, entered into Belgrave a contract with a builder for a renovation. Nominees Pty ● The builder sub-contracted with the defendant for the supply Ltd v Barlinand installation of an airconditioning plant for each Scott building. Airconditioning Pty Ltd [1984] ● The defendant supplied and fitted an airconditioning plant, including a chiller, to the roof of each building. VR 947 ● Each chiller was positioned on a platform constructed on the roof of each building for its support. ● Each chiller stood free on its own weight on pads between its legs and the surface on the platform. ● Connected to the building’s water system ● The defendant had difficulty in recovering from the builder payments under the sub-contract, and it discontinued the installation work. ● The defendant, without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiffs, removed the airconditioning plant. ● The plaintiffs sought a mandatory injunction compelling the defendant to deliver up the plant or alternatively damages for detention, conversion and trespass, claiming that the plant was at the time of removal a fixture.

● A man leased a parcel of land for 21 years ● Constructed a small wooden building which rested on piers in the ground ● At the end of the lease the tenants sought to remove the building, but the owner objected ● Said that the building had become attached to the land and was therefore a fixture, not a chattel - could not be removed ● Tenant objected, said the building was not properly annexed because it was only resting on piers and not fastened to the soil

Parker v

● Units were fixtures ● Were sufficiently annexed to the buildings to make them fixtures. ● Intention ● Evidence shows there was an intention for the air con units to be fixed permanently ● They were to form an essential part of the building ● Object of annexation: ● Mere bolts ● Inference arose from the nature of the airconditioning plant, the positioning and connection of the plant by the defendant, and the fact that when fitted the plant formed an essential part of the building.

● Even the slightest attachment raises the presumption that there was an intention for the item to be a fixture ● This can be rebutted by the party arguing the item is not a fixture, but they must discharge the burden of proof in order to do this ● Intention can be inferred by the nature of the thing itself (though what the parties expressly state may likely take precedence) ● Holland v Hodgson: When an article in question is no further attached to the land by than its own weight, it is generally a mere chattel ● Australian Provincial Assurance Co Ltd v Coroneo: If a chattel is actually fixed to land to any extent, by any means other than its own weight, then prima facie it is a fixture

● Blackburn J: General maxim that a fixture is whatever is attached to the soil becomes a part of it

Holland v Hodgson (1872) Ownership and

● Was a fixture ● Must look at two things: ● Prima facie, since it was only resting on ● Intention (degree of annexation) the stumps, it was a chattel BUT ● Object of annexation ● Based on the evidence, being the degree ● The absence of any physical attachment does and object of annexation, the not prevent an item becoming a part of the buildings had become a fixture and land - not necessary for there to be proper part of the land that could not be attachments (bolts, screws etc) for the annexed item to be deemed a fixture removed. ● Intention of the parties was clearly that the structure would become part of the land (displayed in terms of the lease)

● Mr Parker found man’s gold bracelet on the floor of the

● Mr Parker had superior claim over the ● An occupier of a property must show intention

possession of personal property

airport lounge and returned it British Airways bracelet ● The man was not a trespasser in the Board [1982] 1 ● He requested that if it wasn’t claimed that he become the owner airport lounge, and in taking the QB 1004 ● The airline did not discover the true owner, and sold it when bracelet into his possession and control, he was acting with full it wasn’t claimed. Mr Parker sued. honesty ● Airline argued it was within their control because the airport ● The airline could not assert any title to lounge was not a place general members of the public could access the bracelet based on the rights of an occupier in relation to chattels ● They had control over passengers and who could/could not attached to a building, because the board the plane bracelet was lying loose on the floor. ● Court rejected the argument that this control extended to lost While they had control over some articles parts of the lounge, this did not extend to articles found on the ground: ● No evidence that they search for such articles regularly ● Would have to show that they had possession of the bracelet prior to the man finding it ● The two elements of control and possession must coexist

Ownership and possession of personal property

Armory v Delamirie (1722) 5 Stra 505, 93 ER 664

Ownership and possession of personal

Elwes v Brigg ● Dispute between owner of land (lessor) and occupier (lessee) about historical artefact buried on the property Gas Co (1886) 33 Ch D 562

● Armory was a chimney sweep's boy who found a jewel in the setting of a ring. ● He took the jewel to the shop of Delamirie, a goldsmith, to obtain a valuation of the item. ● An apprentice, the agent of Delamirie, surreptitiously removed the gems from the setting on the pretense of weighing it. ● The apprentice returned with the empty setting and informed Armory that it was worth three halfpence. ● The apprentice offered to pay him for it but Armory refused and asked the apprentice to return the stones and setting in their prior condition. ● The apprentice returned the socket of the jewel without the gems. ● Armory brought an action against Delamirie in trover (via respondeat superior for the actions of his apprentice).

to exercise control over items of lost property which is found on their property ● Referenced Armory v Delamirie (1722) where it was held a man was entitled to an article that he found (except for the true owner) ● A person in possession has the right to possess ● The finder of a chattel has the obligation to take reasonable steps to find the true owner ● The occupier of a property has a superior right to the chattel over the finder, if it is found on his land

● Armory granted priority to the jewel ● The priority of rights to possession say that a finder has better title to property that he or she ● Armory had better claim of possession finds over everyone except the true owner ● The priority of rights to possession say ● Finder does not acquire absolute property, but that a finder has better title to can keep it against all but the rightful owner property that he or she finds over everyone except the true owner, thus Armory had full title to the jewel. ● Both Armory and Delamirie had property rights in the jewel, even though neither was the true owner. This was not relevant - focus is on possession

● Owner of land had better claim

● Generally a finder does not acquire absolute property, but can keep it against all but the rightful owner: Armory v Delamirie

property

● When goods are found attached to land, generally the owner of the land will have a better claim

Ownership and possession of personal property

● Appellant: Penfolds made and sold wine in bottles; retained ● The handling of the bottles for the use by ● Look at title to sue: actual possession or an Penfolds ownership of the bottles which were embossed with its the defendant in his trade WAS immediate right to possession Wines Pty Ltd name INCONSISTENT WITH THE v Elliott (1946) ● The notice informed possessors that Penfolds bottles DOMINION OF THE OWNER. 74 CLR 204 remained the property of Penfolds and that once the ● Remedy: damages for the injury done to contents were used that the bottles must be forthwith chattel ondemand handed over, and stated that the bottles were ● FIX THIS to not be damaged, destroyed,parted with or used for purposes other than retail or consumption ● Respondent: Elliott was a Hotelkeeper, sold bulk wine to customers who provided bottles in which to carry it away ● Penfolds asserted that Elliott, without its consent, had been receiving, collecting and handling their embossed bottles, using them in connection with his business and delivering to his customers liquids not manufactured or marketed by Penfolds and that this amounted to conversion ● D said that he would not purport to sell a branded bottle but that if a customer brought his own bottle to be filled, he believed he was entitled to fill that branded bottle with anything. ● Penfolds applied for an injunction to restrain an alleged trespass to goods

Ownership and possession of personal property

Moorhouse v Angus & Robertson (No 1) Pty Ltd

Ownership and possession of personal property

Re Jigrose Pty ● Hay left behind following a sale of land Ltd

Ownership and possession of

McKeown v Cavalier

● ●

Writer left manuscript with the publisher for 6 years Had a contractual provision reserving all rights to the author that were not specifically granted to the publisher

● Improvements made to a yacht ● Man purchased hull of yacht and traded in one he already

●

This did not amount to abandonment because there was no relevant intention to abandon by the author presumption of abandonment negated by contract

● Contractual provisions may negative an intention to abandon ● Inactivity doesn’t mean abandonment in and of itself

● The REIQ clause in question constituted ● an abandonment of the vendor’s interest in hay left behind following a sale of land ● Improvements made to hull were covered by doctrine of accession

● Halsbury’s Laws of England –

personal property Accession

Ownership and possession of personal property Specification

Yachts Pty Ltd

owned ● Applied appropriate apportionment ● "If a corporeal substance receives an ● Company sold, new owners claimed they didn’t know of the between value of improvements and accession by natural or artificial means, as trading agreement value of original hull by the growth of vegetables, the pregnancy of ● Sought return of yacht ● Value of improvements far outweighed animals or the embroidery of cloth, the original owner is entitled by his right of ● Man argued the yacht was now his, and he had made the value of hull of yacht in original possession to the property in its improved improvements to the hull form ● Young J: The yacht would be seriously state. Similarly when the goods of one person injured if the improvements made to it are affixed to the land or chattels, for example were to be removed by the company a ship, of another, they may become part of it would effectively destroy it and so accrue to the owner of the principal ● Court ordered return of yacht to thing." company, and a fair and just ● If improvements have been made to a chattel, allowance for the proportion of without actual or constructive notice of value of these improvements to another’s ownership in the chattel, and the improvements cannot effectively be removed, man. ● Must consider: the court will make a fair and just allowance for ● Principal item (that continues to the apportionment of the value of the exist) improvements ● Accessory (that no longer exists)

● AA delivered steel to MEF (buyer) Associated Alloys Pty Ltd ● MEF used the steel supplied under the invoices in the fabrication of a variety of steel products, for the purpose v Metropolitan of supply of those products to a Korean company. Engineering ● Then MEF went into liquidation and Fabrications Pty Ltd

● Considered whether it was practical to return steel to original form

● There is no set rule for deciding when a new thing is created. Judges tend to rely on their common sense. ● Bryson J: The question whether goods used in some manufacturing process still exist in the goods produced by that process, or have gone out of existence on being incorporated in the derived product, is a question of fact and degree. ● The question whether the goods are reducible to the original materials is not simply a matter of physics, but the economic perspective has to be considered. ● Referred to: Goff LJ’s reliance in Clough Mill Ltd v Martin [1985] 1 WLR 111 at 119 on a passage from Blackstone’s commentaries where the rule was stated to be that - “where A’s material is lawfully used by B to create new goods, whether or not B incorporates other material, the property in the new goods will generally vest in B, at least

where the goods are not reducible to the original materials.” ● The general rule is that the manufacturer of the new goods will gain the property rights, even where there is a ROT clause, as the original goods no longer exist Ownership and possession of personal property:

Silsbury v McCoon

● Corn stolen and made into whiskey.

● Owner of corn granted ownership of whiskey

● If the creator of a new product used the supplier’s materials without consent, then ownership is granted to the owner of the raw materials, not the creator

● CW Martin liable for its employee’s acts ● CW Martin became sub-bailees when they took the fur into their possession for cleaning, knowing it to belong to a customer of the dry cleaner ● As sub-bailees for reward they had a duty to take reasonable care and to not convert the bailed goods ● They breached this duty ● Morris, as owner of the goods bailed, could sue the defendants, as subbailees for reward, for breach of duty as bailees ● The exemption clause in the trade conditions did not apply – it only exempted loss occurring “during processing” - and the loss of the fur did not occur during processing

● A sub-bailee can be liable to the owner irrespective of the absence of a contract ● A bailor of goods is bound by conditions (an exemption clause) if she has expressly or impliedly consented to the bailee making a subsidiary bailment containing those conditions, but not otherwise ● A sub-bailee can be held liable for the acts of its employees, as this falls under the duty to take reasonable care of the goods ● Once goods bailed for reward are lost or damaged the burden is on the bailee to show that the loss or damage occurred without neglect or default or misconduct on the part of the bailee or of any of his servants to whom he delegated his duty

Specification Bailment

Bailment

Morris v CW ● Plaintiff sent her mink stole (fur coat) to a dry cleaner for cleaning Martin & Sons ● Dry cleaner explained that he did not provide that service, Ltd [1966] and with the plaintiff’s (owner’s) consent, forwarded the mink stole to the defendants (CW Martin & Sons) for the right cleaning ● Morris told that the furrier would send the fur to the defendants, and by doing so, “she impliedly consented to his making a contract on the terms usually current in the trade” ● The dry cleaner, contracting as principal not agent, arranged with the defendants for them to clean the plaintiff's fur on the current trade conditions, of which the dry cleaner knew ● Trade conditions provided that “goods belonging to customers” on CW Martin’s premises were held at customers' risk, and that the defendants should “not be responsible for loss or damage however caused“ ● Further provided that CW Martin should compensate for loss or damage to the goods during processing by reason of the defendants' negligence “but not by reason of any other cause whatsoever“. ● Defendant’s employee stole the mink stole The Winkfield [1902] P 42

● Morris = bailor ● Drycleaner = bailee ● CW Martin = sub-bailee

● The owners of the negligent ship were ● Mail was posted in South Africa and was en route to liable in full for the value of the mail. Southampton in England ● It collided with a ship called the Mexican, which sank after a ● The ship had to recompense the plaintiff for the unregistered mail collision with the Winkfield

● A wrongdoer must treat the bailee as the owner of the goods for all purposes irrespective of the rights and obligation as between him and the bailor.

● Owners of the Winkfield admitted liability when mail was lost regardless of the fact that the ● It was assumed for the purposes of the case that plaintiff Plaintiff was not the true owner, and Postmaster-General was the bailee of the mail, with was just delivering it for others. constructive possession even though custody resided in the owners of the ship on which it was b...