Before this article went to press, I was fortunate enough to receive a set of comments from Jim Evans. These comments are contained in his “The Status of Rules of Precedent: A Brief Reply” which is printed in this volume, and I have adopted the editor's suggestion of incorporating a response to Evans in my text. Remarks provoked by Evans's note occur at the end of Section II and the end of Section III.

I am grateful to Laurence Goldstein and the editor for allowing me this opportunity to make a brief reply to those parts of Goldstein's article which discuss my own earlier article.

The history of a typically defective building may be traced as follows. The building is badly constructed, often because the foundations are too shallow to support it. Soon after this the building is purchased and it may later be sold to a second purchaser. The inadequate foundations gradually shift and cracks appear in the structure and the owner discovers the state of the building. He sues the builder for negligently constructing the building and the local authority for negligently failing to require the builder to conform to the Building Regulations, which require adequate foundations be laid to support the load of the building.

A Purchaser of land who fails to complete his contract for some reason stands to lose his equitable estate in the land and may also forfeit any deposit or other prepayments that have been made. The purpose of this article is to investigate the circumstances in which such a purchaser may obtain equitable relief against forfeiture, and to argue that the jurisdiction to give relief is broader than has been thought in recent years. The matter has been the subject of two recent decisions of such importance that an appraisal of the law seems apposite. To define the field of inquiry, it is helpful to consider two preliminary matters