proposition that, where the breaching party has not shown that the non-breaching party did not have the capacity to make additional sales, the breaching party retains the burden of proving that the non-breaching party could not have made both the contracted-for sale and the supposedly mitigating sale); Crestvalley Homes Ltd. v. Krklinski, [1996] 50 R.P.R. (2d) 283, ¶¶ 35-39 (Ont.) (standing merely for the proposition that, where it is essentially undisputed that the non-breaching party had the capacity to make additional sales, the breaching party retains the burden of proving that the non-breaching party nevertheless could not have made both the contracted-for sale and the supposedly mitigating sale); Candlepin Mach. Parts Ltd. v. Britten, [1991] 109 N.S.R. (2d) 366, ¶¶ 71-82 (N.S.) (<HOLDING>); Mason & Risch Ltd. v. Christner, [1920] 54
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 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 that the market price is understood to mean the current market price being paid for gas at the well where it is produced 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 buyer wishes to invoke the presumption that a nonbreaching seller will resell the contractedfor goods in the open market it holds the burden of proving that there is in fact an available market for those goods