In the case of Sarai et al. v. Singh dated April 3, 2023, applicants, Harnek Singh Sarai, Vivek Sharma, and Karamjit Sarai, sought to purchase a 14-acre property on Airport Road, Caledon, for their expanding trucking business. They engaged with the respondent, Harjit Aujla, who, along with business partners, owned the property, including a suitable residential building. The applicants entered into a $3 million agreement to purchase the property by November 30, 2021. Kulwant Singh, one of the respondents, refused to proceed, alleging the applicants' late deposit delivery. The applicants argued that the agreement was binding due to Mr. Singh's conduct, pointing out that his acceptance of the deposit indicated a waiver of the 48-hour rule. They sought specific performance, highlighting the property's uniqueness, and alleging bad faith on Mr. Singh's part. The court ruled in favor of the applicants, deeming the agreement binding and obligating Mr. Singh to uphold it. They hadn't fundamentally breached the contract, given the respondents' actions. The court considered the property's uniqueness and Mr. Singh's unreasonable behavior, granting specific performance. His co-respondents, unlike Mr. Singh, didn't oppose this decision. No specific information regarding a financial award had been provided in the case.