than December 18, 2000. Because notice was received by December 18, 2000, any jury damages for breach of contract after the expiration of the thirty-day notice period on January 17, 2001 are not supported by legally sufficient evidence. The portion of the jury damages award relating to the period from January 18 until January 31, 2001 should, therefore, be vacated. Finally, Rollins claims that the jury damage awards are unsupported by legally sufficient evidence. State substantive law governs the measure of damages in this breach of contract diversity case. Kona Tech. Corp. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 225 F.3d 595, 601-02 (5th Cir.2000) (citing Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78-79, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938)). Neither party di 7, 329 (Tex.Civ.App.Austin 1972, no writ) (<HOLDING>). The burden is on the plaintiff to provide
holding that a contract must entitle the plaintiff to money damages in the event of the governments breach of that contract holding that a construction contractor is entitled to recover profits upon breach of a partially performed contract but not the same amount as if the contract were completed because that amount must be reduced by the cost of completion 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 holding that one method of computing damages for a breach of contract is the contract price less the reasonable cost of completion 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