Selling House: Projector and Screen - Fixture or Not?

Vert93 on 03/01/2019 - 20:38

Just wanted to get people's opinion on this.

Parents are selling their house, there is a home theatre room downstairs with a projector screen mounted to the wall on brackets and a projector hanging from the ceiling on a bracket.

Originally the real estate agent doing the sale stated that the projector and screen weren't part of the house and could be taken down. So my dad took down the screen and projector. He patched the holes in the wall where the screen was and painted them but left the projector bracket behind in the ceiling along with the wiring.

The real estate agent is now saying that the projector and screen are considered a fixture and need to be included in the sale of the house. To me I can't understand the logic, would you leave behind a wall mounted TV when selling a house? The projector and screen are not explicitly stated in the sale contract to be included either. Thoughts?

Home & Garden

Comments

  • Diji1 on 03/01/2019 - 20:42
    +13

    Get another agent.

  • dcep on 03/01/2019 - 20:47
    +18

    Agent work for Seller.

    Not the other way round.

    Fire him.

  • boomramada on 03/01/2019 - 20:56

    perhaps agent try to up sell? as a home theater with the projector?

  • Donaldhump on 03/01/2019 - 21:02
    +3

    It’s not a fixture imho, 99 percent of house don’t have them, plus the contract stipulates what is

    A dishwasher would be , but sure a seller could take it if they desired and specified in contract it wasn’t a fixture

    I’d tell agent to p.o.

  • barbarella on 03/01/2019 - 21:06
    +1

    If a bracket for example for a TV is on a wall…it should be left there (unless the seller wants to patch up the wall) but the TV goes.

    • ESEMCE on 03/01/2019 - 21:28

      Agreed…
      Ditto for paintings hung on the wall (a la the screen)

      Cables I would argue are fixed…

      • Magus on 06/01/2019 - 22:22

        Cables that go into the wall ARE fixed.

        If in doubt, specify in the contract.

        I have seen places where all the light fittings and curtains were swapped out before settlement. (big no no)

        My last house I got compensation after sale as some fixtures had been removed. Replacement cost.

  • Ughhh on 03/01/2019 - 21:08
    +1

    projector bracket behind in the ceiling along with the wiring.

    Fire the agent, remove all traces of the projector then find a new agent?

    Afaik, if you were to turn a house upside down, anything that doesn't fall down is a fixture (except for mounted tvs of course)

    • Nickels n Dimes on 04/01/2019 - 12:45
      -1

      If you were able to do that, most of the house structure would also fall off, including the tiled roof, brick walls; While stud walls, ceiling and roof structure isn't typically designed for much uplift in non - cyclonic areas, inversion is likely to shear most of it depending on how it is being lifted. Internal fixtures such s cabinetry woyld also generally fall, unless they have plumbing fixtures connecting them to the building structure. Floor finishes are usually quite well fixed, except for carpets which are only pinned down.
      In short, your house will have very little left aside from the floor and some damaged timber framing, maybe a few doors and windows.
      ;-)

  • drfuzzy on 03/01/2019 - 21:23
    -4

    Both projector and screen should be left for the purchaser as they are fixtures. Basically a fixture is something that is physically tied to the property and wouldn't fall out if you turned it upside down.

    The exception would be if you specifically put in the contract that the projector and screen were excluded. If you omitted to do that prior to the sale then you must include them.

    Alternatively you could negotiate with the buyer to reduce the sale price by an agreed amount to compensate.

    • Vert93 on 03/01/2019 - 21:25

      So if a TV or painting were mounted to the wall they are left behind? Sorry just makes no sense to me.

      Won't be negotiating with the buyer as they are already being pains in the ass. My dad was repainting one wall which had cracks when they were inspecting the house. They then expected him to repaint the whole house..

      Will be telling the buyer and agent to go get (profanity), cheers all.

      • Ughhh on 03/01/2019 - 21:33
        +1

        So if a TV or painting were mounted to the wall they are left behind?

        The hooks used to mount the paintings would be, so would the actual mount to mount the tv.

        • Vert93 on 03/01/2019 - 22:17

          Brackets are being left behind so all good there

          • Ughhh on 03/01/2019 - 22:28

            @Vert93: I don't have a projector, nor have I looked into it. But if the brakets come with the projector screen and is unique to it, might need legal advice. However your house is sold as is during inspection so buyer problem imo.

    • chumlee on 03/01/2019 - 21:32

      I disagree. They are not fixtures. Fixtures are what you expect to be there for an indefinite time. I say a projector and screen is temporary.

      • trongy on 03/01/2019 - 22:08

        Something that's mounted to the wall meets the common English definition of fixture.

        I'm not sure if it would meet the legal definition of fixture, but going to court and asking a judge to determine could be an expensive way to find out.

        • chumlee on 03/01/2019 - 22:13

          The buyer would need to initiate legal proceedings & it will cost a lot more than buying a new projector and screen and that's before you even get to argue your case in court

          • trongy on 03/01/2019 - 22:17

            @chumlee: What if the buyer just refuses settlement on the grounds that the terms of the contract have not been met?

            Court cases are expensive, but the loser generally has to pay costs. They buyer could be bluffing or the could have gotten legal advice that makes them confident of winning.

            • chumlee on 03/01/2019 - 22:28

              @trongy: Buyer loses deposit plus could be up for damages

            • tomsco on 04/01/2019 - 07:06

              @trongy: I don’t think the purchaser could refuse/delay settlement based on the projector/screen without penalty themselves.

  • SmiTTy on 03/01/2019 - 21:30
    +2

    Check with your solicitor, might be good to specifically state it in the contract so there is no Confusion as well

    • Vert93 on 03/01/2019 - 21:35
      +1

      Contract was signed a while ago and settlement is in a couple days, this was a last minute back flip on a verbal agreement. Not in writing anywhere.

      • LaProblematique on 03/01/2019 - 21:43
        +2

        If there's nothing in the contract about there being a projector and screen then it seems you've answered your own question?

        Tell the agent to kick rocks.

      • garetz on 03/01/2019 - 23:30

        Fixtures need to be specified in the contract, if it is not specified then its not a fixture, when they tell you its a fixture just refer them to the contract, ie nothing in there for them to reference.

        Ask the agent who is he getting paid by you, or the buyer.

  • swapsey on 03/01/2019 - 21:43

    Is agent scoping for a relative who will buy the house? Can't understand their logic otherwise.😕

  • [Deactivated] on 03/01/2019 - 22:28
    -1

    It is a fixture but given it has been removed prior to the house going on the market, it really does not matter, you can sell a house in any sort of condition provided it doesn't change. It is normal to have left over wiring and stuff. You can remove the stove, bath or what ever as long as you do it before the photos are taken and the buyer looks at it.

  • JimmyF on 03/01/2019 - 23:31
    +2

    The real estate agent is now saying that the projector and screen are considered a fixture and need to be included in the sale of the house.

    Had these items been in the house when the people inspected and placed an offer? If so, they are a fixture.

    A fixture, as a legal concept, means any physical property that is permanently attached (fixed).

    So as the screen/projecter are fixed to the ceiling etc, they are a fixture.

    BUT if your dad removed these BEFORE they looked/put offer in, then its not included.

    Also if you don't want items included, they need to go into the contract of sale.

    At the end of the day, its a old screen and projector. Toss them back in and have the sale go through.

    To me I can't understand the logic, would you leave behind a wall mounted TV when selling a house?

    Its a grey one, but yes the brackets are fixtures, the TV isn't ;)

    The projector and screen are not explicitly stated in the sale contract to be included either.

    As above, if you don't want a fixture included, you need to list them. By default unless listed, every fixture is included.

    • Andrew 1 on 04/01/2019 - 00:16
      +3

      I'll bite — not legal advice, you are going to need to get proper advice on this one as they could potentially get out of the sale or sue for damages here.

      There is a rebuttable presumption that anything fixed by more than its weight is a part of the land (Australian Provincial Assurance v Coroneo). This means that from how it has been explained both the projector (attached to the roof as it has been screwed on through a mount) and the screen (clearly attached to the wall) are fixtures.

      However, this presumption can be rebutted if it can be demonstrated that a reasonable (objective person) would not think that the items were fixtures (May v Ceedive). Your father would bear the burden of proof here.

      The case law discussing this concept often focuses on whether there was an objective intent to make a permanent improvement to the property (see eg Reid v Smith). In (Coroneo) theatre seats that were bolted into the ground but could be reconfigured easily were held not to be fixtures as the seats were bolted into the ground to make them safe (allow their use) NOT to improve the theatre property. Similarly in Leigh v Taylor tapestries that had been attached to the wall were held to have been placed there so they could be displayed. In Leigh a point in favour of the tapestries not being fixtures was the fact that they had been attached in such a way that they could easily be removed.

      Here points against your father could include that — the room was a home theatre room, ie it could be argued that there was an objective intent to make an improvement to the land/dwelling by creating a home theatre room. Similarly, from the way you described it it was very difficult to remove the projector screen which suggests at the least that the original intent was not that this could be easily removed. Arguably the intent was to make a permanent improvement to the house…

      Points in favour of your father — the projector in particular was easy to remove and you could argue that it had merely been bolted to the ceiling to make it functional. A question for you here is whether the projector simply sat in a box attached to the ceiling or was it screwed into the ceiling mount?

      It's going to turn on several facts including how exactly the projector and screen were attached and whether the room was a home theatre (and if the house was sold listing this) or if the room was merely a living area that happened to have a projector in it.

      Going to want to make own mind up here — but I thought I would chime in with some case authorities, hope it helps! Also seriously push back on that agent, their negligent advice has led to this issue… If they expressly told you it wasnt a fixture then you relied on that advice when you removed the screen.

      • chumlee on 04/01/2019 - 07:13
        +1

        Lol. Sue for damages.

        The only loss suffered is the cost of a projector & screen. Do you know how much applications fees are to lodge a court hearing and how much a solicitor charges for pre work and hiw much a barrister charges?

        • Andrew 1 on 04/01/2019 - 08:07

          Hence why I said push back at the agent and tell them it's their fault rather than suing them… and it won't just be the cost of the screen etc. If it was meant to be included in the sale the screen is going to have to be put back up which may require changes to the wall given OP's dad patched it up after taking the screen off.

  • djkelly69 on 03/01/2019 - 23:52

    Translation is the agent told the buyer it was included to get the sale, forgot he told your parents it could go, and is now trying to cover his ass to avoid an issue.

    Bottom line if it is not specified in the contract, it is not included. Ignore the people who did one unit of property law and want to spout off the technical definition of a fixture or chattel.

    • Andrew 1 on 04/01/2019 - 00:17

      But if its a fixture its included in the sale unless it was excluded in the contract.

      • djkelly69 on 04/01/2019 - 01:15
        +2

        The common law definition of a fixture is more than likely irrelevant. I can't see that the OP has specified which state the property is in, but the standard contracts I have seen state that the buyer is purchasing the land, the improvements and the specified inclusions.

        The inclusions are what is listed on the contract under Inclusions or Goods or whatever the particular contract has.

        If it was important to the buyers they should have requested it be noted on the contract prior to exchange.

        • Andrew 1 on 04/01/2019 - 08:06

          From what OP has said the contract wouldn't exclude the projector/screen as otherwise the agent wouldn't be asking for it…

  • PlasticSpaceman on 04/01/2019 - 08:29

    The projector etc are chattels and would only be included in sale if specified in contract. Personally I'd be happy to leave the stuff in place as I'm lazy, if the cost of the equipment was included in the price negotiations. In this case the buyers appear to be trying to get free stuff - but I'd ask the agent if they told the buyers the kit would be included when arranging the price. If they say yes, then the difference can come out of their cut.

  • backpaqer on 04/01/2019 - 10:25

    Fixtures in a house - if you could turn the house upside down… Anything that falls off is not a fixture (easy rule of thumb).

    Me personally… I'd have left the projector behind.

  • wordplay on 04/01/2019 - 10:38

    will be the buyers trying it on, like getting asked by agent to leave work benches/grinders/tablesaws/thicknesser/car hoist etc in place in shed as buyer thought they were fixtures (all bolted to the floor) when put deposit down.

  • gth on 04/01/2019 - 14:46

    Tell the agent to identify how much the buyer is willing to reduce the purchase price due to loss of projector and screen (plus maybe installer cost). Common sense says the difference should match costs of same.

    Then tell the agent that the reduction is coming out of their commission due to incorrect advice that it could be removed.

    This is not a legal standing; just a practical negotiation that gets everyone across the line (and the numpty that stuffed up takes the (small) hit).

    • Slinky0111 on 04/01/2019 - 23:39

      Yup, something like this. My mum sold her house with an unfinished bathroom. It was useable but wasn't waterproofed or sealed. Only vanity, toilet and bath hooked up, shower not.

      The house was been sold as is basically. Buyers could obviously see the bathroom as not finished. When they got the building and pest report back, the bathroom was flagged obviously.

      The buyers wanted to take away the amount to finish the bathroom out of the purchase price. She told them to shove it.

      They ended up doing a deal with the agent. The agent reduced his commision by the cost of the waterproofing

  • Foxtail on 05/01/2019 - 16:16

    Did same as OP but removable items were never inc. in any advertising or could the agent offer it, but at neg stage offered the PJ and fridge as optional package to buyer, they took it.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join