Upon the facts, the legal issue is determining whether Kitfit Homes or Darryl has a better ownership claim of the cabin. Firstly, it must be established if the cabin constitutes ‘personal property’. Subsequently, both Darryl and Kitfit have forms of possession (where Darryl has actual possession of the cabin, and Kitfit has the legal right of possession through the stipulated term of the sale agreement), and it arguable who has the better title. Therefore, the question that then must be answered is whether Darryl’s possession of the cabin is significant enough to claim ownership over Kitfit.
Under the Sale of Goods Act’s the cabin may satisfy the definition of goods. The cabin was prefabricated, and tangible object as it was delivered from…show more content… It was established there must be a physical and mental element, given the nature of the item, whilst also having control over the chattel. Firstly, Darryl maintained a physical element to possess the cabin has he had been living in the cabin on his land for a significant time period. The facts make it is clear that he had gone to a great deal of effort to make the cabin his permeant home and intended to occupy it for a considerable number of years. He frequently maintained the cabin through fixing its utilities, attaching it to the land with concrete stairs, a wraparound deck, and garden. In this way, Darryl demonstrated actual possession of the cabin just as reasonable person would maintain and possess a home they owned and lived in. Simultaneously, it is clear that Darryl has also demonstrated his mental possession of the property. He knew every detail of the cabin unlike in Flack and National Crime Authority where the plaintiff was unaware of the chattel even being present. Darryl’s actions clearly conveyed that he had the intention to possess the cabin as he has lived and used it for many years and after losing his job, he planned to live there permanently. He looked after it with great care, even attaching things like a weather board to protect it from future damage, and even maintaining a garden of shrubs as well as a lawn turf which…show more content… In Asher v Whitlock (approved in Australia by Allen v Roughley (1955) 94 CLR 98 (HCA), it was found that even though Whitlock (defendant) was in actual possession of the land did not give him the best title ‘vis a vis’ because the plaintiff’s first possessory title which has passed on (through law of succession) was deemed to be a better title. Upon the facts of this case, although it may be argued that although Kitfit Homes did not have actual possession, their legal right is stronger than Darryl’s because Darryl has not paid full consideration as stipulated in the sale agreement. In common law, the original possessor retains the best title, unless there is intention to abandon
