future sales price [and] not applying a discount to reduce the price further,” ante at 558, and that the statute “permitted, but did not require” the trial court to apply a discount to the $599,000 future sales price. Ante at 568. The statute did not “require” the trial court to consider the future sales price at all, but because it did, the statute required the trial court to consider that price only with evidence of “the necessity and amount of any discount to be applied” to that price “to arrive at a current fair market value.” Tex. Prop Code § 51.008(b)(5). We have often recognized that, for purposes of calculating damages, the amount of any future payment must be discounted to reflect its present-day value. See, e.g., Sheshunoff & Co. v. Scholl, 564 S.W.2d 697, 698 (Tex.1978) (<HOLDING>); Republic Bankers Life Ins. Co. v. Jaeger, 551
holding that the proper measure of damages was the present value of all unaccrued payments that the plaintiff would have received if the contract had been performed holding that in computing the present worth of such future payments same should have been discounted to their present worth at the date of judgment at 6 per cent interest per annum holding that it is proper to award prejudgment interest at the legal rate from the date the monies were due under the contract holding that award and rate of prejudgment interest are within trial courts discretion holding that an award of future salary payments should have been discounted to its present value at the legal rate of interest