FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 3,427 times | Saved to 452 briefcases
La Salle Recreations Ltd v Canadian Camdex Investments Ltd (1969), 4 DLR (3d) 549 (BC CA)

Facts:

La Salle had sold carpeting to a hotel under a payment plan. CCI bought the hotel, when payment for the carpets had not been completed. CCI claimed that the carpers were fixtures and now their property, while La Salle argued that the carpets were chattel.

Issue(s):

Were the carpets fixtures or chattel?

Ratio:

The test to determine whether an object is a fixture or chattel:
** 1. Is the item resting on its own weight? If so, leads to a presumption that the object is chattel;
** 2. What is the degree of annexation? The stronger the attachment, the greater the presumption that the object is a fixture.
** 3. What is the purpose of annexation? If the object has been affixed for the better use of the chattel, then it strengthens the presumption that it is a chattel. If the object has been affixed for the better use of the land, then it strengthens the presumption that it is a fixture.

Analysis:

The court found that the carpets were fixtures and now the property of CCI. The carpets had been annexed to the land for the better use of the land and not for the better use of the chattel as chattel.

The court asked:

1. Is it resting on its own weight?
** If so, it leads to an immediate presumption that the item is chattel.

2. What is the degree of annexation?
** How is it affixed? Is it reinforced?
** Can it be removed? Will removal cause material injury or irreparable damage?

3. What is the purpose of annexation
** What if item was not there?
** Did it need to be affixed for the land to be complete?
** Does it need to be replaced periodically?
** Is there a ready market for the item?

Holding:

Decision in favour of CCI.


Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.