Land Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words - 1

Land Law - Essay Example This essay represents a study of the key elements of the English Land Law. It states that, although in the UK, in theory, the right of ownership is not absolute, in practice the owner of the fee simple is the owner of the land; s/he also has the right to sell the property on or to improve it and has the right to enjoy the land for ever. It may therefore be noted that in terms of elements such as the right to keep other people out, the right to grow mushrooms in the cellar, sing bawdy songs in the bath, paint the front door luminous green or sunbathe in the nude, the owner would not be restricted in any way. While it is possible that the owner may not be able to carry out all of these wishes out of a consideration for neighbors or for reasons of social propriety, from a legal perspective, there is no restriction placed on the owner to refrain from such acts. In the case of tenancies, the property owner is considered to have absolute rights and is free to lease out the property on the basis of terms that are agreed upon between the owner and the lessee. Thus, when the fee simple absolute right is vested upon an owner of a piece of land, the owner practically has the right to do anything with his or her land, subject to the normal restrictions of propriety and consideration for others. It is stated that the only time when the ownership of the crown is exercised is when a person dies. Should the deceased have no one who can inherit his or her assets, then the estate is disposed of according to the laws of intestacy. Over time, the interests of the crown, although existent, have become increasingly ignored from a practical point of view; it is only in theory that the ownership of the crown rests. But upon death and in the absence of a lawful heir, the laws of intestacy operate to restore the ownership of the estate into the hands of the crown. On this basis, it may thus be noted that to have freehold tenure effectively means the right to occupy and use the property as if it is one’s own and the owner is conferred the fee simple estate, which places no restrictions upon the owner at all, other than those required to conform to the rules of propriety, social and legal restrictions exercised in the interest of protecting the rights of all people. 2. There are thr ee items which are under dispute in the sale of the property located at 19, Ham Road. The first is the playhouse at the bottom of the garden which Carolyn is refusing to remove. The other two are items that Carolyn wishes to remove, i.e., a large metal sculpture at the centre of the rookery and a safe bolted into the wall of the garage. In respect to the removal of items from a property, the question of whether or not Carolyn can remove them from the property will depend upon whether they are to be classified as chattels or fixtures because the latter accede to the realty2 and cannot be detached from the property. Chattels on the other hand, do not attach to the property and are not conveyed with the sale. Lord Godard in the case of Billing v Pill3 defined a fixture as â€Å"a house which is built into the land, so that in law it is regarded as part of the land.†4 The purchaser of a freehold property is entitled to all fixtures on the property on the date of exchange of contr acts5, therefore the issue to be determined is whether or not the large metal sculpture and the safe are to be classified as fittings or fixtures. The distinction between fixtures and chattels was laid out in the case of Holland v Hodgson as being primarily dependent upon two factors (a) the degree of annexation of