The appellant appealed a decision holding that the respondent acquired title to a 50-foot commercial sign located on the appellant's retained land when the respondent purchased an adjacent motel property.
The Court of Appeal found that the application judge did not err in concluding the sign was included in the sale as a chattel, given the broad definition in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale and the evidence of the transaction lawyers.
The Court further held that the easement for ingress and egress was intended to permit the placement and maintenance of the sign.
The appeal was dismissed, but the judgment was varied to declare that the easement permitted the sign's location.
