to maintenance and operation of the camp was improper because the record indicated that part of this amount included the replacement cost of equipment which the seller continued to own. The court then remanded the cause for a re-determination of the consequential damages. From these cases, we cannot agree with the Rogerses that consequential damages are improper in the context of a breach of a contract for the purchase of real estate. As noted above, the Hill case makes no mention of consequential damages. And the implication of the Showalter holding is that some consequential damages might have been proper. Therefore, we see no reason why the general rule for consequential damages resulting from breach of contract should not apply. Cf. Stoneburner v. Fletcher, 408 N.E.2d at 551 (<HOLDING>). The Rogerses further note that "nowhere in
holding that the measure of damages of converted property is the market value at the time of conversion holding failure to raise issue of improper measure of damages in trial court waived review of complaints that proper measure of damages was not submitted to jury and that plaintiff failed to present evidence on the proper measure holding that the proper measure of damages to repair defects for a building contract that has not been substantially performed is the contractually agreed upon measure of damages 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 where the customary measure of damages for a vendors failure or refusal to convey land was inapplicable the measure of damages must be flexible enough to vary with the necessities of the situation