In my Property Law exam, the son was entitled to the fixtures and the daughter was entitled to the chattels under a will. The two were disputing the title to a house that was resting on stumps. The question asked "which of the following is the BEST ARGUMENT FOR THE SON?"
a) [obviously incorrect answer] b) The house is a fixture, therefore the son is entitled to it. c) As it was not a "personal effect", the house belongs to the son. If the daughter wants the house, she should pay the son its value independent of the house d) Both b and c
I selected b), however d) was the "correct" answer. I believe that c) (thus d)) is incorrect because it implies that the son is obliged to sell the house if the daughter wishes to purchase it (obviously no such obligation exists). The lecturer denies that c) that makes such an implication.
Who is right and why?
Thank you SJ.
Top answer
Hi, Welcome to the Forum. I agree with you. The wording needs to more clearly indicate she should offer to pay .
— Clive
Hi, Welcome to the Forum.
I agree with you.
The wording needs to more clearly indicate she should offer to pay .
.
'Should' here expresses obligation on the part of the daughter, but not the son.
Free · every Monday
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
I agree with you. The wording needs to more clearly indicate she should offer to pay . . . 'Should' here expresses obligation on the part of the daughter, but not the son.
For example, If Tom wants John's car, he should pay for it. He shouldn't just drive it away from Tom's home. It seems to me the focus here
- on b): A house on stumps might or might not a fixture, as with the technical means presently available, it can be moved; now this move might cause irreparable damage, thus some expertise might be required in this direction, before defining its status. Thus even b) might be fraught with traps ...