In MacFadden v. Walker (1971) 5 Cal.3d 809, the remedy of specific performance was extended to a willfully defaulting vendee. As articulated by the court, the question presented was "whether failure to qualify for relief from forfeiture under section 3275 precludes the right to specific performance." ( MacFadden, supra, at p. 813.) The court thought not. "We believe that the anti-forfeiture policy recognized in the Freedman case also justifies awarding even wilfully defaulting vendees specific performance in proper cases." ( Id. at p. 814.) In arriving at its decision the court took note of "Professor Hetland's Hetland, supra, 3.58-3.81, pp. 100-134 persuasive arguments that installment land contracts should be treated as security devices substantially on a par with mortgages and deeds of trust, and that therefore 'the law governing those security devices should be adopted with appropriate modifications in determining the remedies for breaches of installment contracts.' That law affords even the willfully defaulting debtor an opportunity to cure his default before losing his interest in the security. " ( Id., at p. 816.) The court declined, however, to decide whether the law governing security transactions was applicable. (Ibid.)