Property Law 1

Semester 1-2024

Topic 6 - Derivative methods of acquiring rights to goods [Accession & Intermixture].

Part A

1) What is Accession?

2) What is the accession of goods to principal goods and is there any relevant case for the principles mentioned in this question 2's answer? And the case mentioned can be disputed?

3) Can the attached chattel be removed or detached from the principal chattels without irreparable damage to it? If yes, please do provide the case laws to support your answer?

4) Can you explain some of the fixtures that are attached to the land and buildings, and what is the courts view in regards to these fixtures?

5) Is there any case laws to support your answer for Q4, please explain in your own words?

6) Can goods that are fixed to the land or the buildings, be regarded as goods and not fixtures, explain this statement and support with any relevant case law if any.

7) Can moveable buildings/portable houses be regarded as chattels or goods? Please support your answer with relevant case laws and explain in your own words?

8) What is the relevance of the below mentioned case [legal principle] and explain the case in your own words?

n Elitestone Ltd v Morris [1997] 1 WLR 687

9) What is the difference between commixtio and confusion?

10) What do you understand by the term tenants in common under intermixture, please with relevant case laws if any? - explain in your own words.

11) What is the principal behind intermixture that has been an accident or not malicious-explain this statement and support with relevant case laws?

12) What is the solution if the Court cannot ascertain the contribution of the owners of the intermingled goods because of fabricated records of wrongful actions? Support with relevant case laws?

13) What the legal principle behind the case law of Indian Oil Corporation v Greenstone Shipping SA [1988] 1 QB 345, please explain this case in your own words?

14) What is the difference between Accession and Intermixture?

Part B

Jo's father Jerry, creates a 'WILL' and the 'WILL' reads; 'To my son Jo for life the 21 acres freehold in Pacific Harbour and to his grandson for life, and if there is no grandson to his granddaughter for life and to his great grandchild for life and after that to the Catholic Church.

Advise Jerry about the validity of his proposal with regards to the principle of Perpetuities and the relevant rules concerning the rights to the interest to the property in the 'WILL' for:

a) Jo;

b) Grandson;

c) Granddaughter; and

d) Great Grandchild.