There is uncertainty surrounding the law regarding ownership of property and exclusive estoppel. This article will address these questions by analyzing two cases that involve these questions. He will first address Jack's case and determine whether the two items in question are personal property or fixtures; next, he will review Laurence's case and determine whether or not he can rely on exclusive estoppel. By addressing both cases, this article will clarify the issues of what constitutes personal property or personal property, and in what situations exclusive estoppel may apply. Jack's caseA fixed piece of furniture is an object that is considered part of the land, whereas a piece of furniture is an object. which is generally not fixed to the ground. In this case, Jack bought Val a house. Jack realizes that some of the items he considered property were missing and wants to know who those items belong to. To determine whether an object is a fixed object or movable property depends, according to Berkley v. Poulett, the degree of annexation of the object to the land and the purpose of the annexation of the object. The degree of annexation criterion "dictates that the greater the degree of annexation, the more likely the object is to be a fixed object", although there are some exceptions to this rule. An object that stands on its own weight does not require any degree of annexation and can be considered a fixed object depending on its purpose. The purpose of the annexation, and a more important part of the test, considers the reason why the object is annexed to the land. If the object is annexed for the purpose of enjoying it itself, it is considered movable property; whereas, if the object is annexed with a view to enjoying the property as a whole, the object will be considered as a ...... middle of paper ...... e, bronze statues are accessories because they are part of the architectural design of the property, while the wardrobe is movable property because its annexation was intended to stabilize it in order to allow its enjoyment. In Laurence's case, he can invoke exclusive estoppel to prevent Wanda from selling the property to Matt because he relied on Wanda's acceptance of his offer and was prejudiced by investing £20,000 in the property. property due to this erroneous belief. Poulett [1977] EGD 754Botham v TSB Bank plc [1997] 73 P & CR D1Coombes v Smith [1986] 1 WLR 808D'Eyncourt v Gregory (1866) LR 3 Eq 382Dillwyn v Llewellyn (1866) 4 De GF & J 517Leigh v Taylor [1902] AC 157 Sayles, Victoria. Land law. 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Thorner v Major [2009] 3 ALL ER 945 Willmott v Barber (1880) 15 Ch 95