its concern with Plaintiffs’ lack of proof of causation and specific damages when the court entered summary judgment against them on their injurious falsehood/business disparagement and wrongful interference with business relations claims, and Plaintiffs’ testimony at trial failed to further illuminate their assertion that Petta’s statements caused them special damages. Plaintiffs’ testimony about special damages was unsupported by any documentary evidence, including any business operations analysis, tax returns or similar exhibits, or expert testimony, and Plaintiffs’ own con-clusory statements provided little quantifiable evidence of their claimed damages, leaving the jury to speculate regarding special damages. See Gilmore v. Cohen, 95 Ariz. 34, 36-37, 386 P.2d 81, 82-83 (1963) (<HOLDING>). ¶43 Furthermore, the evidence presented does
holding that the fifth and fourteenth amendments do not entitle a person to a federal remedy for every breach of contract by a state thus unless every breach of every public contract is to be actionable as a violation of constitutional rights it is necessary to distinguish between mere contract rights and constitutional property rights internal citations and quotation marks omitted holding that the governments position must have a reasonable basis in both law and fact citations omitted recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract recognizing in a breach of contract ease that the plaintiff in every case should supply some reasonable basis for computing the amount of damage and must do so with such precision as from the nature of his claim and the available evidence is possible citations omitted holding that one method of computing damages for a breach of contract is the contract price less the reasonable cost of completion