In that event the injured party is unable to complete the work himself and, subject to the restrictions of sections 3300 and 3359 of the Civil Code, the proper measure of damages is the difference in value of the property with and without the promised performance, since that is the contractual benefit of which the injured party is deprived. ( Knoch v. Haizlip, 163 Cal. 146, 154 [ 124 P. 998]; South Memphis Land Co. v. McLean Hardwood Lbr. Co., 179 F. 417, 423-424 [102 C.C.A. 563]; Hyatt v. Wiggins, 178 Ark. 1085 [ 13 S.W.2d 301, 303].) In the present case the contract was to be performed entirely on property that is not owned by plaintiffs.

The cases relied upon by appellant in support of its contention that the affidavit of respondent was incompetent to dispute the time and place designated in the contract as the location of its execution have reference only to matters essential to the determination of the liabilities of the contracting parties in the respective cases. Knoch v. Haizlip, 163 Cal. 154 [ 124 P. 998], involved the acknowledgment contained in a written agreement between the parties litigant, of the ownership of certain lots of land, which the court properly refused to permit the contradiction of by extrinsic evidence. Moore v. Gould, 151 Cal. 729 [ 91 P. 616 ], held that the recital in a contract between the parties, which acknowledged the extension of time for the instituting of an action upon a promissory note and mortgage, could not be disputed.

The effect of the presumption is given generally noteworthy force and effect by its ready local application. See, Knoeh v. Haizlip, 163 Cal. 146, 124 P. 998; Parker v. Funk, 185 Cal. 347, 197 P. 83.         The important question we have to answer is whether or not the above provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure of the state of California apply in the instant case.

Section 3300 of the California Civil Code provides the following measure of damages arising from a breach of contract in circumstances such as are developed in this record: "For the breach of an obligation arising from contract, the measure of damages, except where otherwise expressly provided by this code, is the amount which will compensate the party aggrieved for all the detriment proximately caused thereby, or which, in the ordinary course of things, would be likely to result therefrom." Generally speaking, the true rule to ascertain the damages suffered by the cross-complainant is thus set forth in Knoch v. Haizlip, 163 Cal. 146, 154 [ 124 P. 998]: "It may be well, as guide to further proceedings in the court below, to indicate our view of the proper measure of damages. The court below seems, after some discussion, to have taken the position that the damages, if the plaintiffs had a right to recover, were to be measured by the difference between the value of their property if the agreement had been performed and its value under the existing conditions.

Upon the contrary, the parties agreed "with each other" that plaintiff "is the owner of the real property described in the schedule annexed to this agreement, marked `Exhibit A'. * * *" The rule of estoppel appears to be applicable to a situation thus presented. Hoogendorn v. Daniel, 9 Cir., 178 F. 765; Knoch v. Haizlip, 163 Cal. 146, 124 P. 998; 21 Corpus Juris 1111, §§ 111, 114. A reference to the schedule discloses that the land therein referred to is described as certain particular fractional portions of numbered sections, township, and range according to U.S. Surveys. But one of the fourteen springs referred to by name and certificate number is described in the schedule as being within a particular section of land and but one is referred to as having its certificate recorded in the office of the county recorder.

(City of Manhattan Beach v. Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 232, 238 (City of Manhattan Beach).)An express easement may be created by contract without words of conveyance, even though a grant or reservation in a deed is more common. (See, e.g., Knoch v. Haizlip (1912) 163 Cal. 146, 149, 151-153; Golden West Baseball Co. v. City of Anaheim (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 11, 35 (Golden West).) A document creates an easement when it manifests an intent by one landowner to give another the right to use his or her land. (Rice v. Capitol Trailer Sales of Redding (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 690, 692-693 [easement created in trust deed encumbering the dominant tenement at time trustor also owned the servient tenement].)