if the seller would have made the second sale in any event, then the “lost volume” measure of damages places him in the same position he would have been had the buyer not repudiated. As the Court in Davis Chemical v. Diasonics Inc., 826 F.2d 678, 683, n. 3 (7th Cir.1987), stated, “by definition, a lost volume seller cannot mitigate damages through resale. Resale does not reduce a lost volume seller’s damages because the breach has still resulted in its losing one sale and a corresponding profit.” See also Storage Technology Corp. v. Trust Co., 842 F.2d 54, 56 n. 2 (3rd Cir.1988) (pointing out that resale does not make a lost-volume seller whole); Matthews, infra, 51 U. Miami L.Rev. at 1214 (noting that the philosophical heart for Lost Volume Lessees, 34 Washburn L.J. 136 (Fall 1994) (<HOLDING>). By adoption of S.C.Code Ann. § 36-2A-528(2),
holding that the commercial use requirement of section 1125c is virtually synonymous with the in connection with the sale offering for sale distribution or advertising of goods and services requirement of the lanham act holding that the fact that one of the remedies sought by the state of kansas is restitution to the allegedly aggrieved kansas consumers does not transform the state of kansas into a citizen for purposes of establishing diversity jurisdiction holding that a statement of conditional sale of goods can be filed with the state auditor before the delivery of goods where statute says the statement must be filed within ten days of delivery of goods recognizing that section 8227082 of the kansas statutes codifies the lost volume recovery for the sale of goods holding that the avoidance powers provide for recovery only if the recovery is for the benefit of the estate