who is under no obligation to buy. Jabri, 145 S.W.3d at 667; Nelson v. Najm, 127 S.W.3d 170, 177 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied). Intrinsic va Cameron seemed to express doubt as to the propriety of the jury’s manner of calculating the damages per square foot, in noting that the jury’s figures included the value of the land in evaluating the damages for deficiency in the square footage of the house. 618 S.W.2d at 538 n. 4. Similarly, the price agreed to by the parties in this case for the house also included the land. Matheus received the land as bargained for, along with the house, for the price he paid, but he produced no evidence of the price per square foot for the house, apart from the price for the entire lot and house together. See Leyendecker, 683 S.W.2d at 373 (<HOLDING>). There was no competent evidence to support
holding that damages were not fixed until a bank actually sold certain property and the deficiency between the price of the house and debt owed was apparent holding buyer liable for balance of contract price of accepted goods holding buyer not entitled to outofpocket measure of damages based on deficiency in square footage of house absent evidence or finding as to the price paid for missing square footage as distinct from price of entire lot and improvements 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 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