Stephan’s Machine & Tool, Inc., purchased a boring mill from D&H Machinery Consultants. The mill was a specialized type of equipment and was essential to the operation of Stephan’s plant. The purchase price was $96,000, and Stephan’s had to borrow this amount from a bank to finance the sale. The loan exhausted Stephan’s borrowing capacity. The mill was unfit, and D&H agreed to replace it with another one. D&H did not keep its promise, and Stephan’s sued it for specific performance of the contract as modified by the replacement agreement. Is specific performance an appropriate remedy? Discuss. [Stephan’s Machine & Tool, Inc. v D&H Machinery Consultants, Inc., 417 NE2d 579 (Ohio App)]