concept,” Arnold v. Amoco Oil Co., 872 F.Supp. 1493, 1500 (W.D.Va.1995), and a “range of prices” may have a “reasonable claim[] to being [i.e., approaching] fair market value.” Slatky, 830 F.2d at 485. Because a range of prices may reasonably be found to approach fair market value, the mere fact that the parties have submitted competing appraisals and/or offers does not necessarily preclude the entry of summary judgment in one party’s favor. See, e.g., Rhodes, 143 F.3d at 1372 (“We wish to emphasize, however, that we do not hold that summary judgment for the franchisor can never be proper, and that jury trial must always be had, whenever the parties each produce an appraisal and the appraisals do not arrive at identical conclusions on value”); see also Sandlin, 900 F.2d at 1482-83 (<HOLDING>). This is because an estimation of “ ‘value’
holding that judgment as a matter of law was properly entered in a franchisors favor despite a difference between the parties appraisals as the difference was relatively small and the franchisors offer was between the two holding the sale valid as between the original parties despite noncompliance with the act holding that although the defendant was able to impeach the prosecution in certain respects the suppressed information was material under brady because there was a significant difference between the suppressed material and the information to which the defense had access holding the measure of damages is the difference between the value of the automobile prior to the upset and its value when prepared and presented to the plaintiff for acceptance holding that technical difference of partys status as independent contractor instead of an employee as charged in the indictment was a matter of semantics and was not a variance from the indictment