factor in calculating the final price agreed upon between the parties, this does not equate to evidence that the sale of the house was a negotiated agreement for a sale based on a per square foot unit. The evidence of the agents was undisputed that they were never aware that Matheus was attempting to negotiate a sale on a per square foot basis. And Ma-theus has pointed to no evidence that the final negotiated price was agreed upon per square foot, that is, per “unit” as compared with a sale in “gross” so as to entitle him to measure the damages in the manner he seeks. We overrule Matheus’s first issue and hold that the trial court did not err in granting the motion for judgment because Matheus’s proposed measure of damages was n -San Antonio 1996, writ denied) (op. on reh’g) (<HOLDING>). The price agreed oh by the parties is
holding that where plaintiff sought recovery of fees against multiple defendants evidence of unsegregated fees was more than a scintilla of evidence to support fee award what a reasonable attorneys fee would be for the entire case indicates what the segregated amount  should be holding that there was no evidence of market value where owners testimony affirmatively showed that it was based on personal value holding parties negotiated price of vehicle was evidence of market value as represented 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 evidence of amount paid for property thought to include mineral rights was more than a scintilla to support market value of land as represented