There is uncertainty regarding the law regarding property ownership and property foreclosure. This article will address these issues by analyzing two cases involving these questions. It will first address Jack's case and whether the two objects in question are chattels or fixtures; then, it will look at Laurence's case and whether or not he can rely on the proprietary exclusion. By addressing the two cases, this document will clarify the questions of what constitutes a chattel or appliance and in which situations the proprietary exclusion may apply. Jack's CaseA fixture is an object considered part of the land, while a chattel is an object that is generally not fixed to the land. In the present case, Jack purchased a house from Val. Jack realizes that some of the items he considered part of the property are missing and wants to know who these items belong to. To determine whether an object is a fixed object or a chattel depends, according to Berkley v. Poulett, by the degree of annexation of the object to the land and the purpose of annexation of the object. The degree of annexation test “implies that the higher the degree of annexation, the more likely the object is to be a fixture,” although there are some exceptions to this rule. An object that rests on its own weight does not require any degree of annexation and can be considered a fixed element depending on its purpose. The purpose of annexation, and the most important part of the test, considers the purpose for which the object is annexed to the land. If the object is attached for the purpose of using the object itself, it is considered movable property; while if the object is annexed in order to enjoy the property as a whole, the object will be considered a... means of paper... and, the bronze statues are fixtures because they are part of the architectural design of the property, while the wardrobe is a movable asset because the purpose of its annexation was to stabilize it in order to be able to enjoy it. In Laurence's case, he can rely on a property exclusion to prevent Wanda from selling the property to Matt because he relied on Wanda accepting his offer and suffered damage by investing £20,000 in the property due of this erroneous belief. Works CitedBerkley v 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 157Sayles, Victoria. Land law. 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.Thorner v Major [2009] 3 ALL ER 945Willmott v Barber (1880) 15 Ch 95