cost they would have incurred to have the project completed. The contractor argued that completion of the project would constitute economic waste so that the owners were entitled to recover only the difference between the market value of the structure if completed and the market value of the work performed. Id. at 1320. In refusing to accept the contractor’s argument, the Utah court held that the breaching contractor bears the burden of proving, “affirmatively and convincingly,”' that completion would result in economic waste and, further, that the breaching contractor in this case failed to demonstrate unreasonable economic waste by its failure to present evidence necessary to take the market value approach. Id.; see also Shell v. Schmidt, 164 Cal.App.2d 350, 330 P.2d 817, 827 (1958) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 959, 79 S.Ct. 799, 3
holding that defendant has the burden of proving that a product has been altered unless the product has been lost whereupon plaintiff must bear the burden of persuasion if the defense of substantial change is raised holding at trial a criminal defendant has the burden to prove his insanity by a preponderance of the evidence holding a plaintiff must provide sufficient evidence for the court to conclude a holding company has been brought into court for something it has done rather than for something its subsidiary has done holding that the breaching contractor has the burden to affirmatively and convincingly prove that economic waste would result and that a substantial part of what has been done must be undone holding that the governmentowner has the burden of proving that the prime contractor has been relieved of responsibility to pay any recovery to the subcontractor