1. Why did it matter to the parties in this lawsuit whether the cranes were fixtures or not?
2. Did the fact that the appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court mean that the cranes were fixtures?
3. What is the key factor in determining whether property is a fixture, and how did that factor determine the outcome in this case?
4. What might the court conclude if the Port of Seattle had rebuilt the terminal to accommodate the cranes with the intent that they be removed after the end of APL’s lease term?