the lost volume theory is that the seller would have generated a second sale irrespective of the buyer’s breach such that it follows that the lost volume seller cannot possibly mitigate damages). Further, we find the legislature’s adoption of S.C.Code Ann. § 36-2A-528(2) is consistent with adoption of the lost volume seller doctrine. Section 36-2A-528(2) (dealing with leased goods) tracks the language of S.C.Code Ann. § 36-2-708(2) (seller’s damages for sales). Section 36-2-708 clearly tracks the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code section (UCC § 2-708(2)) upon which the lost volume seller doctrine is premised. See generally, Jerald B. Holisky, Finding the Lost Volume Seller; Tivo Independent Sales Deserve Two Profits Under Illinois Laiv, 22 J. Marshall L.Rev. 363 (Winter 1988) (<HOLDING>); Jonathan J. Lautt, Contract Law: A Clean
recognizing doctrine recognizing separation of powers doctrine recognizing that the artful pleading doctrine in practice is subsumed by the complete preemption doctrine recognizing that the lost profit seller doctrine emanates from ucc 27082 recognizing the collateral order doctrine for the first time