them by the terms of the contract. Paragraph 11 limits Plaintiffs’ remedy to replacement of the swine or, at Defendant’s option, refund of the purchase price. Such a limit cannot be enforced if the remedy fails of its essential purpose or if it is an unconscionable limitation on consequential damages. Iowa Code §§ 554.2719(2) and 554.2719(3). Plaintiffs maintain that the limitation causes the remedy to fail its essential purpose because the replacement or refund of purchase price of the boars which spread the disease bears no relation to the damage which might be sustained. Plaintiffs’ argument fails to address the relevant question, however. “The purpose of a remedy is to give the buyer what the seller promised him. . .” Hartzell v. Justus Co., Inc., 693 F.2d 770, 774 (8th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>), see also Select Pork, Inc. v. Babcock Swine,
holding that the testimonies of three qualified expert witnesses about the damages done to a house by termites and their opinions as to what the repairs would cost was some evidence that the cost of repairs was reasonable and necessary although those words were not used in their testimonies holding that if repairs to a firedamaged vehicle with parts of like kind and quality would not restore the vehicle to its former market value the proper measure of damages was the difference in market value before and after the loss where the policy limited liability to the cost to repair or replace the property  with other of like kind and quality less depreciation holding where a house sold by defendant was found to fall short of the sellers promises and where it could not be repaired to the promised condition defendants liability could not be limited to the cost of repairs however if the repairs had been adequate to restore the house to its promised condition and if plaintiff had claimed additional consequential damages for example water damage to a rug from the leaky roof the limitationofremedies clause would have been effective holding that if despite repairs there remains a loss in actual market value estimated as of the collision date such deficiency is to be added to the cost of repairs holding that the total cost of repairs could be found to be a fair measure of the plaintiffs total damage