value of the Surplus Material in 2008 or 2009 when scrap prices recovered. See, e.g., Quealy, 475 So.2d at 762 (determining that the proper date for valuation of converted stock was trial date because the value fluctuated and the general rule would not make the plaintiff whole); Succession of Gragard, 106 La. 298, 30 So. 885, 888 (1901) (“Considering that the cotton was being held for better prices, we think that the owners of it should be given the benefit of the better prices that prevailed within a few months afterward.”). Orion responds that the period suggested by Syracuse (2008-2009) is too remote from the conversion which occurred on April 1, 2002, and that the traditional measure of damages must be applied. See, e.g., Womack v. Sternberg, 247 La. 566, 172 So.2d 683, 686 (1965) (<HOLDING>). See also Lockhart v. Sutton, 503 So.2d 1046,
recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract holding damage award resulting from a breach of an agreement to purchase securities is the difference between the contract price and the fair market value of the asset at the time of the breach holding merely that to the extent a breaching party claims that the appropriate measure of damages is the difference between the contract price and the market price it holds the burden of proving that there is in fact an available market for the goods in issue holding that one method of computing damages for a breach of contract is the contract price less the reasonable cost of completion holding that the measure of damages for the breach of a contract of sale where no fraud is shown is the difference between the contract price and the market price of the goods on the date of the breach