The illustrations which have been given show that the allowance of what is in effect specific performance of an obligation, or the transfer of ownership at the election of one party without the other's assent and without resort to a court of equity, is not unusual in our law, and most persons would hesitate to say that in these illustrative cases the plaintiff should be denied the specific execution of the obligation due him. Courts of equity have confined the right of specific performance of affirma-ative obligations in regard to personal property so narrowly that either injustice must be done or the necessary remedy must be sought in another way. Indeed, it may be questioned whether the remedy of a bill in equity would be so satisfactory in the case of ordinary sales of goods as the shorter cut afforded by courts of law. If the proper equitable remedy cannot be adequately reproduced by the procedure of a court of law, it is doubtless wrong for it to invade the province of equity. likewise the results which equity with its elastic decrees reaches in Analogous cases must be taken as the standard of permissible relief, and it is only to reach such results by the judgment of a court of law or by permitting an injured person to work out his own redress, that relief in these summary ways should be allowed. But where the same result can be reached at law as in equity, the court of law not only may invade the province of equity, but it should do so if the rule of equity is more just. Especially should it do so if the court of equity for technical reasons refuses to take jurisdiction of the case, and the court of law must give the only available remedy. Where a seller has prepared goods of a special and peculiar kind under a contract and the buyer wrongfully refuses to take them, this reasoning is particularly applicable. Damages are not an adequate remedy for the seller. He does not want the goods himself and he cannot resell them readily, yet they are not without value, and if he is confined to the difference between their value and the contract price, a substantial diminution from the price would be made. Further, a court of equity will not take jurisdiction of the case. Though there is the same reason for doing so that exists in the case of a contract for the sale of land, so far at least as the seller's side of the bargain is concerned, courts of equity have been indisposed to extend their jurisdiction to such cases.95

93 See infra, 5Sec.1466 et seq. In France and Louisiana the injured party brings an action in court for rescission of the contract. 94 See infra, Sec.1818.