v. Ober, 107 F.3d 925, 933 (1st Cir.1997); Kerr-Selgas, 69 F.3d at 1213; Elgabri v. Lekas, 964 F.2d 1255, 1259 (1st Cir.1992); Elwood, 815 F.2d at 176, “ ‘is near its zenith in the Rule 51 milieu.’ ” Clausen v. Sear-3, Inc., 21 F.3d 1181, 1196 (1st Cir.1994) (quoting Toscano v. Chandris, S.A., 934 F.2d 383, 385 (1st Cir.1991)). Rule 51 requires a punctual objection identifying “distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds of the objection.” Fed. R.Civ.P. 51 (emphasis added). Here, however, WorldCom interposed no record objection to the special verdict form, as distinguished from the jury charge defining “the measure of damages.” Moreover, WorldCom articulated no grounds whatsoever for its objection to the special verdict form or the jury charge. Failure to object with the (1916) (<HOLDING>). Thus, at the very least, the “fair market
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 holding that fair market value was proper measure of damages for stock brokers breach of margin agreement caused by sale of plaintiffs shares without authorization noting that generally speaking fair market value is proper measure of damages for breach of contract relating to sale of goods which have an ascertamable value on the market holding in action for breach of contract caused by wrongful foreclosure and sale of shares of stock plaintiff was entitled to recover the fair market value of the stock at the time of its sale holding that the measure of damages for the breach of a contract of sale where no fraud is shown is the difference between the contract price and the market price of the goods on the date of the breach holding that the measure of damages of converted property is the market value at the time of conversion