Can a transaction be considered a part of a common law series if it has a genuine independent purpose and existence?

I am unable to agree with the trial judge that a transaction cannot be a part of a common law series if it has a genuine independent purpose and existence. To explain why, it is necessary to consider the reasons that led to the development of the common law doctrine of a series of transactions. The concept of a common law series was originally based on an analogy to a contractual arrangement. If transactions were bound to occur by reason of contracts binding all of the parties, the equitable interests would pass instantly on the conclusion of the contracts, and the courts would look to the final result of the contracts without paying any attention to the motives for any intermediate steps (see Craven v. White at 513).