本篇大學assignment代寫-買賣雙方的合同案件講了亞瑟買房後簽署的協議表明,佔有的財產,誘導他買丟失,如豔麗的水噴泉,carriage-desk寶座,然而這些都是顯式聲明在原始的文件中是不會銷售的一部分。其餘的元素，如辦公設備，如桌子、椅子、複印機等，還在那裏。現在的問題是取消一個反向循環空調。它被移走了，因爲它所在的地方受到了嚴重的損壞。這款產品並沒有明確排除在銷售之外，比如水鼓、馬車桌和王座。然而，賣家表示，她並沒有打算把這件物品作爲交易的一部分。本篇大學assignment代寫文章由新西蘭第一論文 Assignment First輔導網整理，供大家參考閱讀。
In the case of question 4, Arthur after buying a property by signing the rightful agreements finds that much of the possession in the property that induced him to buy is missing, such as a flamboyant water bubbler, carriage-desk and throne, however these were explicitly stated in the original document as things that would not be part of the sales. The rest of the elements such as the equipment of office like desks, chairs, photocopiers etc. were still there. Now the issue in question is the removal of a reverse cycle air conditioner. It had been removed that there was significant damage to where it was situated. This item was not specifically excluded from the sale like the water bubbler, carriage-desk and throne. However, the seller advises that she did not intend the item to be part of the sale.
According to the original contract agreed upon by the seller and the buyer, the water bubbler, carriage-desk and throne were specifically excluded in the sales. It is the right of the buyer to make him aware of these terms before accepting the agreement. Now since Arthur had failed to do so, it would not be legally possible to claim these items back. However, the reverse cycle air conditioner has not been excluded.
Applying the doctrine of fixtures to the case, it can be said a fixture is something that has a more permanent affixation. It is so attached to the building that it can be considered as being part of it (Zuchowski, 2013). Those that are not attached to the building, but in essence add to the ambience, are called the chattels. The water bubbler, carriage-desk and throne are essentially chattels. In the context of dispute for the air conditioner, the test for degree of annexation reveals that the air conditioner is fixed to the premises that some amount of damage had to be done in order to remove it. Secondly, applying the test object of annexation, the intention in installation would be taken into account. Once again, an air conditioner is more permanently situated compared to object like a bubbler or a throne. Moreover, since the Air conditioner was not specifically excluded, it could be argued that Arthur has a stronger claim on it.