about the broker’s allusion to his alleged client’s willingness to pay $100,000 an acre is inadmissible to prove value. Defendants fall back argument is that Warren’s testimony is admissible because it is not offered to prove value per se but, rather, only to support that demand existed for .part of the land as a future commercial retail space, thereby tending to show that was a highest and best use. The Government- argues that such is a distinction without a difference. Strictly speaking, Warren’s testimony about what the broker told him is hearsay regardless of whether it is offered to establish the bona fides of either the amount of the offer or the interest of the broker or his alleged principal regarding a particular purpose for the land. See Emmco Ins. Co., 492 F.2d at 511 & n. 3 (<HOLDING>). Nonetheless, in giving their opinions,
holding the aggregate value of the land and its improvements is the controlling value holding that the measure of damages in fdupta actions is the value of the product as promised minus the value of the product delivered holding determination of property value in case to decide if assessed value was excessive is not a liquidated demand where only evidence of property value was the conclusory allegation of value in plaintiffs unsworn petition holding that there was no evidence of market value where owners testimony affirmatively showed that it was based on personal value holding that testimony by offeree that salvage broker offered to buy cargo of frozen french fries for 40 of invoice value was hearsay where offered to show the truth of any inference that an offer was in fact made or that the cargo was worth 40 of its invoice value or that the french fries had value as a food product ie are edible