of its damages are calculable, it does not show a way to calculate damages for American’s claims of loss of goodwill and other intangibles. We agree. As we have already stated, the intangible types of injuries testified to by Balsom are the types of injuries to which a dollar value may not easily be assigned. Martin, 671 S.W.2d at 710. A remedy is not adequate simply because some of the proven damages are calculable. See Tex. Indus. Gas v. Phoenix Metallurgical Corp., 828 S.W.2d 629, 532 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ) (“For a legal remedy to be adequate, it must give the applicant complete, final, and equal relief.”); see also Towers v. Grogan, No. 01-97-00946-CV, 1998 WL 191760, at *4 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 23, 1998, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (<HOLDING>). We conclude and hold that American proved
holding that although some breach of contract damages were calculable specific damages for which grogan sought injunctive relief were intangibles incapable of being measured by damages holding that generally punitive damages are not available for a breach of contract holding that plaintiffs consequential damages were too speculative because no evidence connected damages to defendants breach of contract holding that a plaintiff can seek statutory damages even in the absence of actual damages holding that damages for a breach of contract to negotiate an agreement are measured by the injury suffered by the plaintiff in relying on the defendant to negotiate in good faith not by expectation damages