ascertained from the record that the jury in that case likewise calculated damages “by multiplying the cost of the house per square foot as represented ... times the square footage deficiency.” 618 S.W.2d 535, 538 n. 4 (Tex.1981). The jury question there, as in Tim-mons, did not contain an instruction on a measure of damages. Id. The supreme court did not address whether the measure of damages used by the jury was proper, holding that Terrell & Garrett, Inc. waived error by failing to object to the evidence and failing to request an instruction on the proper measure of damages. Id. Generally, damages calculated as Matheus proposes have only been allowed where a sale of real estate is on an agreed “per unit” basis. See Denman v. Stuart, 142 Tex. 129, 132-33, 176 S.W.2d 730, 732 (1944) (<HOLDING>); Schleicher County v. Hudgens, 255 S.W.2d 927,
holding that the analysis to determine whether a claimant has established a reasonable basis to plead a claim for punitive damages is similar to the analysis applied to determine whether the allegations of a complaint are sufficient to state a cause of action holding value per acre negotiated by parties for sale of tract applied to determine damages for shortage holding that new york common law must be applied to determine whether the parties formed an oral settlement agreement and state statutory law must be applied to determine whether the agreement if any is enforceable holding in action for breach of contract caused by wrongful foreclosure and sale of shares of stock plaintiff was entitled to recover the fair market value of the stock at the time of its sale holding that fair market value was proper measure of damages for stock brokers breach of margin agreement caused by sale of plaintiffs shares without authorization noting that generally speaking fair market value is proper measure of damages for breach of contract relating to sale of goods which have an ascertamable value on the market