that maintenance expenses amounted to $4,800 per year and would escalate at an inflationary rate of five percent. Pomeranz may have been qualified to testify about the cost of maintenance if it had been established that he possessed some personal knowledge of the maintenance costs, that maintenance costs were part of the business records relating to the property, or that his opinion was rationally based on his own perceptions as the managing co- e issue of future maintenance expenses was legally insufficient to provide a basis from which the trial court could arrive at a fair approximation of the amount of those expenses. However, on remand, the trial court may award nominal damages for future maintenance expenses. See Doyle v. McBee, 161 Colo. 130, 137, 420 P.2d 247, 250 (1966) (<HOLDING>). B In attempting to prove the amount of future
holding that the right to nominal damages was waived in a breach of duty action when plaintiff failed to raise the issue of nominal damages until after the verdict holding that the right to nominal damages for eighth amendment violations can be waived if such damages are not timely requested holding that in an action for breach of contract only nominal damages can be recovered if there is no evidence produced from which the facts necessary to determine damages under the proper rule can be determined holding that the right to nominal damages for race discrimination claims can be waived if such damages are not timely requested recognizing attorney fees and expenses may be recovered if they constitute damages from the breach of a contract but not if they are incurred in proving the breach