Issue

Which types of Co-ownership existed before and after the Christine’s purchase of share in the property?

Rules
Section 34 (1) - Land Transfer Act of Fiji
Analysis
There was shared tenure among Arieta and Amelia prior to Christine's arrival into the property
sharing. A legal situation wherein two or more individuals jointly hold a piece of property each
with having a fair amount of rights and liabilities is known as a "tenancy in common." Married
and unmarried couples, friends, family members, and coworkers can all establish joint tenancy.
Because of the so-called special provision created by this legal arrangement, the ownership of the
property passes straight to the successor participant) upon the death of a deceased owner before going
through the probate or judiciary system. Let's take the case of an unmarried couple buying a home. When
making the purchase, they decide on joint occupancy. The dual proprietors would be listed as tenants in
common on the title to the estate. They share the advantages since each participant has a right to the
property. Each partner is liable to a 50 percent portion of the profits if they choose to sell the house or
rent it out to someone else. However, their connection also implies that they share equal financial
responsibility for the home's upkeep, including the mortgage, real estate taxes, and upkeep. The other
party is highly required if one side doesn't fulfill their financial responsibilities.

Additionally, this agreement establishes a rights of succession. This implies that upon the death
of one partner, the remaining party will immediately become the sole owner of the land. This
does away with the requirement for probate or the distribution of a decedent's assets to an estate.
The validity of a person's will is decided by probate courts, who also decide how to distribute the
dead people's possessions amongst some of the beneficiary.
Pros

Because one of the tenants passes away, the other renters can skip probate court.

The contracting party receives all of it right away, even in the absence of a will or beneficiaries
specified. Meaning that if either Arieta or Amelia had passed away prior to Christine's presence,
the entire possession would have passed to a different owner rather than the dead predecessor.
The Land Tansfer Act of Fiji's Section 34 (1), which reads as follows:

When two or more people are enrolled as entrepreneurs of any property or control of land
pursuant to the provisions of this Act, they shall be considered to be privileged to something like
joint tenants, and on the death of any one of such owners, there shall be no entitlement of
survival rates, based on the provisions of any law currently in force pertaining to trust funds and
to the provisions of Chapter XV, except if the contrary original intent is voiced in the device of
designation.
Cons

There is no right to overall survival governed by the provisions of any currently in place law
directly relating to trust monies and the requirements of Section XV when two or more
individuals are registered as business owners of any estate or acquisition of property information
pertaining to the provision of the Act, unless the direct contrast original purpose is expressed in
the devic.
The founder will change from tenancy agreement to occupancy in general after Christine enters
this scenario.
A situation in which two or more persons divide ownership rights in a home or piece of land is known as
tenancy in common (TIC). Equal or varied portions of the overall land, that may be either commercial or
domestic, may be under the jurisdiction of each separate owner. A renter in common may give their part
of the estate to whatever recipient they want when they pass away; the wealth goes to their estates.
When two or more persons own a piece of property as joint tenancy (TIC), they each have an equal stake
in and access to all of its features. Nevertheless, the share information of the founder may differ. For
instance, Arieta, Christine, and Amelia might each own 25% of a property, with Amelia owning the
remaining 50%.
Agreements governing tenancy in joint can be made whenever you choose. Therefore, a person may
become interested in a property years after the other tenants in the unit have signed a tenancy-in-common
agreement. Using the aforementioned situation as an example, we could claim that Arieta and Amelia
each initially possessed 50% of the estate. At some time, Sarah made the decision to include Christine in
the partnership and share a 50% stake with her.
Pros

makes easier purchasing of the estate

Number of renters can change eventually

Possibility of different degrees of owners

Cons

No automatic survivorship rights

Equal debt and tax liability applies to all tenants. Arieta and Amelia would not be responsible for
paying Christine's toxic debt, for instance, if Christine borrowed money by mortgaging her share
of the property and was unable to repay it.

Property sales may be compelled by one tenant. If there is a disagreement between it three
members and Christine decides to sell property, she may compel the sale of the entire property,
which would have a bad impact on the two colleagues Arieta and Amelia.

Conclusion
Arieta and Amelia had a warranty deed before Christine bought the property, meaning they
shared the advantages of the entire property and shared responsibility for any damage it
sustained. The entry of Christine changed the type of co-ownership from joint estate to tenancy,
where the owning shares were not spread fairly among the three of colleagues and each was
responsible for any damage or debts incurred based on their share of the property, with the
option to even compel the selling of the entire estate.

Issue
Can Jiten still remain in Pratap’s Land after the expiration of agreement?

Rules
Section 110 (2) – of property law act of Fiji

Analysis
In the context of law, a fixture is any tangible object that is fixedly affixed to real estate (usually land).
Chattel property is defined as property that is not attached to real estate. Especially in the case of a
security interest, fixtures are recognized as a component of real property.
The question of whether a chattel became a permanent will be important in a variety of general situations.
However, there are a few situations when this problem is especially pertinent. When the land is being
sold, mortgaged, or leased, the question is very crucial. This is because there are frequently concerns
raised about the precise nature and contents of the land in such circumstances. For instance, if land is
being sold under a contract of sale, the buyer will also acquire all chattels that have become fixtures upon
settlements in addition to the actual land. Because they will naturally pass with the conveyance of the
land, the fixture won't need to be specifically mentioned in the contract's conditions. If the chattel has not
yet become a fixture, it cannot be transferred to the buyer of the land unless it is specifically mentioned in
the sales contract. has mobility.
Therefore, if a buyer wants to buy a chattel that is linked to the land, this should be stated as a component
of the properties being sold underneath the contract until it is obvious that the chattel has turned into a
fixture. In this case, the Masi is chattel because it is a tangible object that may be moved because it was
hung on Jone's walls of the building that he wishes to sell.
For instance, in the case of Leigh v. Taylor [1902] AC 157, the real estates owner of land affixed some
extremely priceless tapestries to the wall of the home's drawing room. The canvas was stretched out after
the tapestry were nailed to it and before wooden reinforcements were attached to each end. Then, the wall
was secured with nails by the wooden supports. The court ruled that the most crucial factor in deciding
whether or not the tapestries were fixtures was to ascertain the life estate owner's intention while
installing the tapestry. The Earl of Halsbury came to the conclusion that notwithstanding the the
tapestries' slight cession to the walls and the assumption that they were fixtures, it was obvious from the
facts that this affixation was the only way for them to be properly viewed and enjoyed; by doing so, the
life property holder only aimed at enhancing the pleasure of the wall hangings, not the ground as a whole.
It was permitted to remove the tapestries.
for the air conditioner to cool the house and the solar panels that Jone installed to provide the home with
80% of its energy needs. People that put solar panels on their roof typically don't plan to take them down
when they sell their home. Additionally, it is most probable that the landlord will install the solar panels
rather than the renter, who in any case would need the landlord's permission to do so. In order to avoid
any misunderstandings, sellers and buyers should clearly address this. It is more likely that the property
owner's objective for installing solar panels is for the panels to be affixed to the home and pass with the
land.
Due to these factors, solar panels are most likely to be considered a fixture and should be specified as an
enhancement or at the very least, an inclusion in the Agreement. The fact that a chattel is believed to stay
a chattel and not to have become such a part of the land was emphasized. When a chattel is connected to
the land other than by its very own weight, it is assumed to be a fixed, and the burden of proof rests with
the party asserting that it is not. In Drake v. Kyle [1968], it was emphasized that a considered property is
assumed to be a fixture if it is connected to the land or by its own weight, and the burden of proof lies
with the group asserting that it is not a mainstay; conversely, a chattel is assumed to remain a chattel and
not to have become a part of the land if it merely remains upon its own weight. So, after the sale of the
property, Jone cannot remove the photovoltaic power and the air conditioning. 1.

Conclusion
Therefore, it is evident after studying these cases and relevant section that (Masi) chattel can be taken by
Jone with him after sale but solar panels and air conditioners cannot be removed by Jone as it is fixture
and part of the building.

1
“Solar Panels - Fixtures or Fittings - Listed in a Contract of Sale?” (Com.au)
https://www.bartier.com.au/insights/articles/solar-panels-fixtures-or-fittings-listed-in-a-contract-of-sale/ accessed
July 19, 2022
Issue
Can Jiten continue his tenancy after the expiration of tenancy agreement for period of five yers?
Rules
Section 6 (b) – Agricultural Landlord and Tenant Act 1976
Analysis
According to my study, the agreement which both parties entered on certain terms of agreement was
correct. Only thing Pratap messed up while preparing agreement was that he was not aware of the clause
of Agricultural Landlord and Tenant Act 1976. Pratap wanted to give out his land for agricultural purpose
only for period of 5 years but the was not aware that section 6 (b) of Agricultural Landlord and Tenant
Act 1976 states that :
Notwithstanding the provisions of any Act or agreement to the contrary but subject to the other provisions
of this Act-
(b) any contract of tenancy created after the commencement of the Agricultural Landlord and Tenant
(Amendment) Act, 1976* shall be deemed to be a contract of tenancy for a term of not less than 30 years;
This clause from Agricultural Landlord and Tenant Act 1976 will automatically extend the period from
five years to thirty years. So that means for more than 20 more remaining years Jiten can cultivate crops
from Pratap’s land

Conclusion
If the matter reaches to court then there are majority chances of Jiten to get decision in his favors because
clause 6 (b) of Agricultural Landlord and Tenant Act 1976 will extend his tenancy agreement by default
for remaining years until 30 years is complete.

Issue
Can Pratima take legal action against Tevita, Jon Jon and Derek?

Rules
Section 75 (3) - Residential Tenancy Act Fiji 2017
Section 83 (1) - Residential Tenancy Act Fiji 2017
Section 87 (3) - Residential Tenancy Act Fiji 2017
Analysis
For Tevita, Pratima can take legal action against Tevita for paying rent prior to the expiration of
agreement. Tevita breached the agreement made between him and his landlord because he failed to pay
his rent. Even after receiving notice to vacate he did not vacate as per clause 72 of Residential Tenancy
Act Fiji 2017. After this Pratima should have taken extra legal process but she failed to do so on time. As
a result Tevita continued to stay, but this caused loss to Pratima as she could have got money from other
tenants. So Tevita will be liable for remedy of the timeframe where he stayed and did not paid as per
agreement according to section 87 (3): The compensation payable by a tenant under this section in respect
of a fixed term agreement is the amount of the applicable break fee for the tenancy, if the agreement
provides for the payment of a break fee.
Jon Jon is liable for the remedy to Pratima as he breached agreement by moving out of property without
informing Pratima about his movement as per section 75 (1) because he moved out of property without
completing the contract and FCCC will consider the situation as per section 75 (3) where:
75. (3) In considering the circumstances of the case, the Commission may consider the following
inclusive of but not limited to: (d) any steps taken by the landlord about the breach
For Derek he can be given notice by Pratima to Vacate the house as per section 76 (1): A termination
notice given by a landlord on the ground of a breach of the residential tenancy agreement solely arising
from failure to pay rent (a non-payment termination notice) has no effect unless the rent has remained
unpaid in breach of the agreement for not less than 30 days before the notice is given.

Conclusion
Hence, after studying the scenario it is likely to conclude that Tevita will be forced to pay compensation
for the period he stayed for free in the house, while Jon Jon can be booked under section 75 for breach of
contract whereas Derek can be given notice to vacate the house by pratima.

Issue
Can Siteri pick items if she missed the given time period ?
Rules
Section 28- sales of goods act of Fiji
Section 30 (1) - sales of goods act of Fiji

Analysis
The relationship in this scenario between Rita and Siteri is of Vendor and buyer respectively. The full
amount of money was paid to by Siteri to Rita, which means that Rita is still holding onto to Siteri’s
property in her possession as Siteri was not able to come on and pick the leftover uniforms on the given
times. This will invoke section 30 (1) of Sales of Goods Act Fiji which states that:
Whether it is for the buyer to take possession of the goods or for the seller to send them to the buyer is a
question depending in each case on the contract express or implied between the parties. Apart from any
such contract express or implied, the place of delivery is the seller's place of business if he has one, and if
not, his residence:
Provided that, if the contract be for the sale of specific goods which to the knowledge of the parties when
the contract is made are in some other place
Under section 28 of sales of goods act of Fiji, it is clearly stated that: It is the duty of the seller to deliver
the goods and of the buyer to accept and pay for them in accordance with the terms of the contract of sale.
But in this case all the cost of the efforts by Rita was paid to Siteri, so if Siteri forgot or stuck somewhere
it is duty of Rita to contact Siteri to remind her to collect her goods. If Rita is not able to contact Siteri
then it is her duties to get the goods delivered to Siteri at her work or home address since she ha already
paid for the goods so it Is obvious that Rita is not going into loss as she had done her job and already got
paid. If Rita fails to make the effort to deliver goods then she will be liable for any losses incurred by
Siteri’s Restaurant.

Conclusion
Hence, in a nutshell, it is Rita who will liable for the probable loss incurred by the Siteri’s business if
uniforms are not delivered as Siteri as already paid for the uniform but fails to pick, so section 28 of Good
sales act will require Rita to deliver the uniform.