An additional factor to be considered was also referred to in Reynolds v. Ashby & Son, [1904] A.C. 466, namely, the positions of the rival claimants to the property alleged to be a chattel. In that case the dispute was between the vendor of equipment pursuant to a hire/purchase agreement and the assignee of a mortgagee of the real property. Some concern was expressed that if the equipment should be held to be affixed to the real property the real property mortgagee would be obtaining title to equipment without paying anything therefor. It was nevertheless concluded that the equipment formed part of the realty.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.