The Major Difference Between Fittings and Fixture in Land Law Coursework - 3

The Major Difference Between Fittings and Fixture in Land Law - Coursework Example These tests highlight not only the importance of distinguishing between fixtures and fittings but the major differences between the two. Although the distinctions are not always clear, a common trend can be identified: the significance of the item in terms whether or not it has become so attached to the land, that it should not be regarded as anything other than a part of the land. This paper examines the major differences between fixtures and fittings by reference to case law. The early case of Holland v Hodgson is a good place to start as it established two test for distinguishing between fixtures and fittings. In this case, the question was whether or not looms that had been installed at a factory could be regarded as part and parcel of the factory. Blackburn J stated that in order to determine whether or not an item was a fixture or a fitting it was necessary to consider the extent of the annexation and its purpose. In this regard, an item that was annexed to the land by virtue o f its own weight would not be considered a fixture unless there was an intention that the item would form part and parcel of the land.5 What can be gleaned from this ruling is that it is first necessary to look at the item and to determine whether or not it is actually fixed to the property and not merely supported by its own weight. If it is fixed, it is a fixture and will likely be considered part and parcel of the land. However, if the item is merely supported by its own weight, then the question will remain whether or not the item was intended to be a part of the land. Buckland J offered some guidance by referencing the case of a stone wall. For instance, if stones were merely plied upon the land there is an assumption that those stones were not intended to form a part of the land.