a substitute transaction and can be adequately compensated by damages based on that amount,” the increased amount paid by the injured party may be adequate to restore the injured party to the position he would have been in had the breach not occurred. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 347 cmt. a. In the instant case, ARV proved that it had to secure replacement vessels on the open market in order to complete its project after Con-Dive’s breach and that it actually paid the costs for those vessels. ARV proved through its expert that the increased expenses were reasonable and necessary. The district court, which was in the best position to assess the matter, found ARV’s expert to be credible and reliable. See, e.g., French v. Allstate Indem. Co., 637 F.3d 571, 581 & n. 9 (5th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). We perceive no error in the district court’s
holding that it is improper to ask a witness to comment on the credibility of another witness holding that the jury is the judge of the weight and credibility given to witness testimony holding that the district court must make findings on the record as to the basis for its conclusion about the amount of actual loss holding that the district court was best positioned to assess witness credibility when determining the plaintiffs actual loss holding that promises made by the prosecution to a witness in exchange for that witness testimony relate directly to the credibility of the witness