© 1987 by Oxford University Press
EQUITY, ESTATE CONTRACTS AND THE JUDICATURE ACTS: WALSH v LONSDALE REVISITED
*Fellow of Lincoln College, Oxford
This study examines the apparently well-established rule that the equitable doctrine of conversion operates on a contract to grant an interest only so long as it is specifically enforceable. It observes that in principle and in practice there is good reason to believe this not to be the case. It looks at the original culture of conversion, in terms of the historical relationship of property and contract from which it emerged, but suggests that the specific enforceability rule first arose out of the narrowness of the original availability of common injunctions. But when, in the late nineteenth century, common injunctions began to lie more expansively and the rule could have been discarded, it was in fact preserved, and indeed insisted upon. It is suggested that this was because adherence to the old narrow view on common injunctions and to its concomitant, the specific enforceability rule in estate contracts, served the purposes of the Chancery lawyers who were contemporaneously adopting a restrictive attitude to the effects of the Judicature Acts 1873–5, by emphasizing the distinctiveness of equitable institutions. However, such views were not a doctrinally necessary consequence of that attitude, and, given the a priori unsuitability of the specific performance rule, there seems no reason why it should not nowadays be regarded as obsolete. But the lessons which equity had thus had to learn by experience can usefully be extrapolated into conclusions of more general applicability for legal development.