stock repurchase, and competition. Given the previously discussed problems with Mr. Wilsey’s testimony, we cannot conclude it was error for the district court to reject his testimony in its entirety. However, these arguments suffer from their own infirmities as well. For example, there was testimony Garcia's sales were growing prior to the contamination, but turned negative after the incident, there was testimony the previous owner of the repurchased stock would not have sold the stock but for the salmonella contamination, and Mr. Payne testified his damage calculations (using values other than the publicly traded stock price) excluded any damage due to competition. Therefore, we reject Simplot's argument. 7 . See also Herrington v. County of Sonoma, 834 F.2d 1488, 1506 (9th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); Johnson v. Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d 503,
holding that the value of business opportunities lost due to defendants rico violations is compensable holding that plaintiffs can obtain reimbursement for past or future educational expenses under the idea but not general damages such as compensation for lost earning power holding that a business owners testimony was insufficient to establish lost profits where he was not able to specify which contracts they lost how many they lost how much profit they would have had from the contracts or who would have awarded them contracts and explaining that the plaintiffs could have supported their lost profits with testimony that they had lost out on specific contracts but failed to do so holding that an award of compensation for future lost earnings or front pay is an equitable matter for the court not the jury holding plaintiffs could not obtain compensation for both lost value and lost profit