First and foremost, it is important to consider the contractual agreement existing between Eve and Frank as it pertains to the status of the fence. If the contractual agreement between both considers the fence to be a fixture then the court will honor the agreement. On the other hand, if the contractual agreement with respect to the fixing of the fence does not consider it as a fixture then the court will also stand as per the agreements (Cunningham et al, 1993). Nevertheless, they need to consider what initiated the idea of fixing the fence in the real property. Moreover, there is need to consider what the initial importance of the fence being fixed was and whether the fence was intended to be permanent. If the answer is yes, then the fence becomes a fixture since, fixture according to Megarry & Wade (1975) is a physical property which is permanently attached to real property implying that if it is removed it would lead to permanent damage of the property. On the other hand, if the answer is no then the fence will not be considered a fixture. Furthermore, they should also consider the strength and the type of the fence attached on the real property. On the side of strength, if the poles making the fence are attached to the real property with a concrete foundation, then the fence can be considered to be reasonably strong thus qualifying to be a fixture. Finally, there should be a consideration that between the fence and the warehouse what came first? The fence can be certainly be considered a fixture if the fence preceded the warehouse. In such a case the court may apparently take the stand that the fence was intended to be permanent.
Reference
Cunningham, R. A., Stoebuck, W. B., & Whitman, D. A. (1993). The law of property (2nd ed.). St. Paul, Minn.: West Pub. Co.. Megarry, R., & Wade, W. (1975). The law of real property (4th ed.). London: Stevens.
