vehicles because there was no evidence that Regal sold the vehicles in a commercially reasonable manner. Standard of Review In a legal sufficiency review, we determine whether the evidence at trial would enable reasonable and fair-minded people to reach the verdict under review. City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 827 (Tex. 2005). We credit favorable evidence if a reasonable factfinder could, and disregard contrary evidence unless a reasonable fact-finder could not. Id. Where there has been no objection to the charge submitted to the jury, the sufficiency of the evidence is measured by that charge even if the charge effectively raises the plaintiffs standard of proof above what is otherwise required by law. See Romero v. KPH Consol, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 212, 221 (Tex.2005) (<HOLDING>); City of Fort Worth v. Zimlich, 29 S.W.3d 62,
holding that the sufficiency of evidence to prove malice as an element of negligent credentialing as contrasted from exemplary damages would be measured by the clear and convincing evidence standard provided in the charge submitted even though the law only required it to be proved by a preponderance of the evidence holding that the proper standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence holding that sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction is not measured by the jury charge actually given but rather measured by the elements of the offense as defined by a hypothetically correct charge holding that despite the lack of a statutory requirement that severe child abuse be shown by clear and convincing evidence due to the consequences of such a finding the clear and convincing standard must be applied holding clear and convincing standard to prove fraud or fraudulent intent and preponderance of the evidence to prove other elements under  727