The Major Difference Between Fittings and Fixture in Land Law - Coursework Example These tests highlight not only the importance of distinguishing between fixtures and fittings but the major differences between the two. Although the distinctions are not always clear, a common trend can be identified: the significance of the item in terms whether or not it has become so attached to the land, that it should not be regarded as anything other than a part of the land. This paper examines the major differences between fixtures and fittings by reference to case law. The early case of Holland v Hodgson is a good place to start as it established two test for distinguishing between fixtures and fittings. In this case, the question was whether or not looms that had been installed at a factory could be regarded as part and parcel of the factory. Blackburn J stated that in order to determine whether or not an item was a fixture or a fitting it was necessary to consider the extent of the annexation and its purpose. In this regard, an item that was annexed to the land by virtue of its own weight would not be considered a fixture unless there was an intention that the item would form part and parcel of the land.5 What can be gleaned from this ruling is that it is first necessary to look at the item and to determine whether or not it is actually fixed to the property and not merely supported by its own weight. If it is fixed, it is a fixture and will likely be considered part and parcel of the land. However, if the item is merely supported by its own weight, then the question will remain whether or not the item was intended to be a part of the land. Buckland J offered some guidance by referencing the case of a stone wall. For instance, if stones were merely plied upon the land there is an assumption that those stones were not intended to form a part of the land.
Friction - Lab Report Example
From the experiment, it is clear that the static friction force for block with one weight and block for two weight is higher than the kinetic friction force for both masses. This is to enable the object move at a constant velocity. The static friction force for block with one weight and two weight were 6.254 Â± 0.7658 N and 3.773 Â± 0.4060 N respectively. While the kinetic friction for the same masses was 2.472 Â± 0.1193 N and 1.361Â± 0.09464 N. respectively.
On the other hand, the co-efficient of static friction for block with one weight and two weight was 0.6134 Â±0.20297 and 0.5667Â± 0.1224 respectively. While, co-efficient of kinetic friction for the same masses were 0.22127Â± 0.1224 and 0.22400 Â± 0.019076.
Both the coefficient of static and kinetic friction was consistent with the values obtained by other groups. These result shows that the coefficient of static friction reduces as more weight is added to the object. The same scenario is also witnessed with the coefficient of kinetic friction. However, for a clear relationship to be obtained between the co-efficient of both static and kinetic friction more weights needs to be added on the object so as to obtain a good relationship.
The obtained results showed that 70 % of the measurement lied in the (average Â± one std. deviation). While, 97.5 % of the friction force lied in the (average Â± two std. deviation). Even though, the percentages of the measurements that lie (average Â± one std. deviation) and (average Â± two std. deviation) are slightly higher than 68 % and 95 % respectively. These results are can be said to be normally
Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.