Q.
Define what you understand by:
i) Hereditament
ii) Chattel
iii) Fixture
iv) 'rebus sic stantibus'
A.
i) Hereditament
In law, a hereditament (from Latin hereditare, to inherit, from heres, heir) is any kind of property that can be inherited.
Hereditaments are divided into corporeal and incorporeal. Corporeal hereditaments are "such as affect the senses, and may be seen and handled by the body; incorporeal are not the subject of sensation, can neither be seen nor handled, are creatures of the mind, and exist only in contemplation".[1] An example of a corporeal hereditament is land held in freehold.
Examples of incorporeal hereditaments are hereditary titles of honour or dignity, heritable titles of office, coats of arms, prescriptive barony, rights of way, tithes,advowsons, pensions, annuities, rents, franchises, etc. The term is still used in the phrase "lands, tenements and hereditaments" to describe property in land, as distinguished from goods and chattels or movable property.
In England and Wales, the term is used in property taxation. A rateable hereditament is a property which fulfils the requirements to render it subject to a rating assessment. Assessments may apply to both corporeal and incorporeal hereditaments.
Ref:
Wikipedia search 'hereditament', available at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereditament
Personal property is generally considered property that is movable,[1] as opposed to real property or real estate. In common law systems, personal property may also be called chattels or personalty.
In civil law systems, personal property is often called movable property or movables – any property that can be moved from one location to another. This term is in distinction with immovable property or immovables, such as land and buildings.
Movable property on land, that which was not automatically sold with the land, included for example a larger livestock (wildlife and smaller livestock like chickens, by contrast, were often sold as part of the land). In fact the word cattle is the Old Norman variant of Old French chatel (derived from Latin capitalis, “of the head”), which was once synonymous with general movable personal property.[2]
Distinctions
Accountants also distinguish personal property from real property because personal property can be depreciated faster than improvements (while land is not depreciable at all). It is an owner's right to get tax benefits for chattel, and there are businesses that specialize in appraising personal property, or chattel.
The distinction between these types of property is significant for a variety of reasons. Usually one's rights on movables are more attenuated than one's rights on immovables (or real property). The statutes of limitations or prescriptive periods are usually shorter when dealing with personal or movable property.
Real property rights are usually enforceable for a much longer period of time and in most jurisdictions real estate and immovables are registered in government-sanctioned land registers. In some jurisdictions, rights (such as a lien or other security interest) can be registered against personal or movable property.
Ref:
Wikipedia search 'chattel', available at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property
Differentiate Fixtures and Chattel go here.
iii) Fixtures
A fixture, as a legal concept, means any physical property that is permanently attached (fixed) to real property (usually land), the removal of which would permanently damage the real property. Property not affixed to real property is considered chattel property.
Fixtures are treated as a part of real property, particularly in the case of a security interest. A classic example of a fixture is a building, which—in the absence of language to the contrary in a contract of sale—is considered part of the land itself and not a separate piece of property.
Generally speaking the test for deciding whether an article is a fixture or a chattel turns on the purpose of attachment. If the purpose was to enhance the land the article is likely a fixture. If the article was affixed to enhance the use of the chattel itself, the article is likely a chattel.[1]
Ref:
Wikipedia search 'fixtures', available at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixture_(property_law)
'where in respect of any particular holding, in the opinion of the Valuation Officer, there is insufficient evidence to base a valuation of annual value upon, the Valuation Officer may apply such methods of valuation as in his opinion appears appropriate to arrive at the annual value;'
In such manner, every property must be valued 'rebus sic stantibus'
[As properties may subject to wear and tear, the state of the property may change over time. Thus, the rentable value may change over time too. This change could affect the Annual Value of the holding.
Hence, the decision on what value should be determined based on the 'existing state' rather than from historical records which could be wrong. In this manner, the rating of the holding is open to modification over time.
In contrast, contract law does not provide this progressive modification. What is in the contract is fixed, and within certain framework of allowances. If modified, it is a new contract. For example, rental of RM1,000 per month from 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2015, and RM1,200 per month from 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2016. This is contract which cannot be changed due to reasons like the water sink got spoilt or the TV set needs repair. However, if it is rating, it can be valued at lower Annual Value with such changes to its rentable condition.
Therefore, it can be said that rebus sic stantibus is an exception in condition that changes over time and to allow either parties to have option out of the agreed terms and at NO damage to claim.]
What exactly is rebus sic stantibus?
A principle used in international law to justify a state from ousting itself from the binding nature of a treaty that it has previously signed and adopted, citing changed circumstances.
In Trans World Airlines, Madam Justice Sandra Day O'Connor of the Supreme Court of United States wrote:
"A treaty is in the nature of a contract between nations. The doctrine of rebus sic stantibus does recognize that a nation that is party to a treaty might conceivably invoke changed circumstances as an excuse for terminating its obligations under the treaty."
Such an argument would have no weight in contract law (as specifically enshrined in the Latin maxim pacta sunt servanda and except, perhaps, to the extent that equity might apply) but in international relations, it is thought best to accommodate rebus sic stantibus.
However, it has not been received and applied without controversy as to allow it to be wielded without control jeopardizes the very existence of international law and order, and certainly the word of virtually every treaty.
The entire Latin phrase is conventio omnis intelligitur rebus sic stantibus, shortened to rebus sic stantibus.
In his 1929 treatise on international law, Henry Wheaton noted that there were several ways in which a state claim to be free of treaty obligations. Many treaties contain opt-out mechanisms. But as to rebus sic stantibus, treaties:
"... are liable to dissolution on demand of one of the parties on a vital change of circumstances, on the principle conventio omnis intelligitur rebus sic stantibus.
"It is clear that (rebus sic stantibus) is a very dangerous factor and that it cannot be misused but, on the other hand, the principle that no treaty can be broken is equally dangerous. It is fair to say that each state contracts in the belief that it is not endangering its national life and development, and if a treaty in fact proves to threaten these essentials, it can insist on revision or cancellation. Yet there must be grave cause; mere loss or inconvenience is not enough...."
Ref:
Duhaime.com Learn Law, available at
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/R/RebusSicStantibus.aspx
[X] Own account.