have struggled with the question of whether a party who suffers damages due to defective work should be awarded the cost of repair or rather, whether damages should be calculated based on the diminution in value of the structure that resulted from the defective work. See Shell v. Schmidt, 164 Cal.App.2d 350, 360, 330 P.2d 817 (1958) (reviewing case law addressing when cost to repair, as opposed to diminution in value, is used as a measure of damage, and holding that burden was on defendant to establish that award of cost of repair was so economically wasteful as to warrant award of diminution in value). California courts generally hold that the appropriate measure of damages for construction contracts is cost of repair. See Kitchel v. Acree, 216 Cal.App.2d at 123, 30 Cal.Rptr. 714 (<HOLDING>); Jones v. Kvistad, 19 Cal.App.3d 836, 842, 97
holding construction of new building was part of a grocers business holding that the measure of damages for breaching a building construction contract is ordinarily such sum as is required to make the building conform to the contract holding that the proper measure of damages to repair defects for a building contract that has not been substantially performed is the contractually agreed upon measure of damages holding that rental value was properly included as part of damages on action for breach of building contract where contractor failed to complete building within contracted time holdingextra expense coverage for the construction of a new building when the insured previously rented the building contravened the parties intent