They used the defective goods because they had no practical alternative. Thus, the Trial Judge could have concluded that any benefit the plaintiffs derived from use of the home was de minimis in light of the burdens that use entailed, and therefore he committed no error in finding that the mobile home had no value on the date of acceptance. Holz v. Motor Company. 206 Va. 894, 147 S.E.2d 152 (1966), distinguished and affirmed. Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of Charlottesville. Hon. Herbert A. Pickford, judge presiding.
While Virginia law does not require a plaintiff to prove his damages with "absolute certainty," he must provide sufficient evidence for a factfinder to make "an intelligent and probable estimate of the amount of the damages or loss sustained." Holz v. Coates Motor Co. , 206 Va. 894, 147 S.E.2d 152, 155 (1966). And when a transaction involves a transfer of goods or property, the proper measure of damages is "the difference between the actual value of the property at the time the contract was made and the value that the property would have possessed had the representation been true," Prospect Dev. Co. v. Bershader , 258 Va. 75, 515 S.E.2d 291, 300 (1999) (emphasis added), the latter often called the bargained-for value .
However, when the amount of damages is left to conjecture or speculation, there can be no recovery therefor." Holz v. Coates Motor Co., 206 Va. 894, 897 (1966) (citing Gunnell v. Nello L. Teer Co., 205 Va. 28, 35 (1964)). Several Virginia cases are instructive.
Code Sec. 8.2-714(2). This formula was essentially the measure of damages for breach of warranty before the adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code. Holz v. Motor Company, 206 Va. 894, 896-97, 147 S.E.2d 152, 155 (1966); Smith v. Hensley, 202 Va. 700, 705, 119 S.E.2d 332, 335 (1961); Jacot v. Grossmann Seed Co., 115 Va. 90, 98, 107, 78 S.E. 646, 647, 650 (1913); Eastern Ice Co. v. King, 86 Va. 97, 103, 9 S.E. 506, 508 (1889). Thus, in proving damages for breach of warranty of goods that can be bought and sold on the open market, a party must present evidence of the fair market value "at the time and place of acceptance" of the "goods accepted" and of what they would have had "if they had been as warranted."
Thus, facts in a particular case must be such as to allow a reasoned and well-informed estimate of the amount of damages or loss sustained. Holz v. Coates Motor Company, 206 Va. 894, 147 S.E.2d 152 (1966). See Stevens v. Abbott, Proctor and Paine, 288 F. Supp. 836 (E.D.Va. 1968).
Thus, facts in a particular case must be such as to allow a reasoned and well-informed estimate of the amount of damages or loss sustained. Holz v. Coates Motor Co., 206 Va. 894, 147 S.E.2d 152 (1966); see Stevens v. Abbott, Proctor and Paine, 288 F. Supp. 836 (E.D.Va. 1968). Reminc elicited testimony from George Schoonover, an employee of Shefferman Bigelson Company, a consulting engineering firm.
Thus, facts in a particular case must be such as to allow a reasoned and well-informed estimate of the amount of damages or loss sustained. Holz v. Coates Motor Co., 206 Va. 894, 147 S.E.2d 152 (1966); see Stevens v. Abbott, Proctor and Paine, 288 F. Supp. 836 (E.D.Va. 1968). The defendant must file a definite statement of claims with notice of it to the plaintiff.
While the court noted there was no express evidence of the value of the automobile as accepted, facts similar to those of Muzelak supported a jury award for the full amount. The court distinguished McGrady from Holz v. Coates Motor Co., Inc., et al., 206 Va. 894, 147 S.E.2d 152 (1966), where the Virginia court held that absent evidence that the automobile did not run, the buyer's testimony, standing alone, that the automobile was worthless would not support a jury award for the full purchase price. However, the plaintiff also had evidence of repair costs to support his allegation.
See Ross v. C S Coal Clay Co., 350 Pa. 548, 39 A.2d 584 (1944). The purchase price is not the relevant factor; the value the goods would have had if they had been as warranted is crucial. It is true that the purchase price is prima facie the value that the goods would have had if they had been as warranted. 77 C.J.S. Sales ยง 376(b); Grossman v. Johnson, 242 N.C. 571, 89 S.E.2d 141 (1955); Holz v. Coates Motor Company, 206 Va. 894, 147 S.E.2d 152 (1966). However, it is possible that the purchaser made a good (or a bad) bargain, and he should not be deprived of the value of his bargain.
See Espaillat v. Berlitz Schools of Languages of America, Inc., 127 U.S.App.D.C. 293, 383 F.2d 220 (1967). Guthrie v. Greenfield, D.C.Mun.App., 109 A.2d 783 (1954); District News Co. v. Goldberg, D.C.Mun.App., 107 A.2d 375 (1954); Holz v. Coates Motor Co., 206 Va. 894, 147 S.E.2d 152 (1966). Appellant also contends that the manager's testimony, even if sufficient to support the judgment, was inadmissible because it violated the best-evidence rule.