Nextel may have cancelled H & J’s service for’lack of payment or that H & J went out of business, because in a FDUTPA action, the measure of actual damages is the difference in the market value of the product or service in the condition in which it was delivered and its market value in the condition in which it should have been delivered according to the contract of the parties. A notable exception to the rule may exist when the product is rendered valueless as a result of the defect — then the purchase price is the appropriate measure of actual damages. Rollins, Inc. v. Heller, 454 So.2d 580, 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)(quoting Raye v. Fred Oakley Motors, Inc., 646 S.W.2d 288, 290 (Tex.App.1983)) (citations omitted); see Coghlan v. Wellcraft Marine Corp., 240 F.3d 449, 453 (5th Cir.2001)(<HOLDING>); Urling v. Helms Exterminators, Inc., 468
holding that if respondents suit is one for permanent damages to the land the measure of damages is the decreased value of the land holding that the measure of damages of converted property is the market value at the time of conversion holding that a cause of action on the theory of strict liability may be properly pled by alleging 1 the manufacturers relationship to the product in question 2 the unreasonably dangerous condition of the product and 3 the existence of a proximate causal connection between the condition of the product and the plaintiffs injury holding that the measure of damages in fdupta actions is the value of the product as promised minus the value of the product delivered holding the measure of damages is the difference between the value of the automobile prior to the upset and its value when prepared and presented to the plaintiff for acceptance