court does not believe that there was very much, if any, maintenance expense. Consequently, although the court acknowledged that the $550 award based on rental value should reflect appropriate deductions, it made none to the award. The rental value awarded as the measure of loss of use damages should have been reduced by the amount that United saved in overhead or other associated costs while not in possession of the truck. Because United presented no evidence of these costs, the trial court erred in calculating loss of use damages at $550. Cf. Ferreira, 44 Haw. at 576, 356 P.2d at 656 (“The extent of plaintiffs loss must be shown with reasonable certainty and that excludes any showing or conclusion founded upon mere speculation or guess.”); Omura, 78 Hawai'i at 418, 894 P.2d at 115 (<HOLDING>). 2. Accordingly, although United proved loss
holding that a business owners testimony was insufficient to establish lost profits where he was not able to specify which contracts they lost how many they lost how much profit they would have had from the contracts or who would have awarded them contracts and explaining that the plaintiffs could have supported their lost profits with testimony that they had lost out on specific contracts but failed to do so holding that the essential purpose of use tax is the recoupment of lost sales tax revenue holding that plaintiff fails to prove lost profits ie net profits where the plaintiff submits evidence of lost gross sales revenue but neglects to submit any evidence of costs or expenditures related to the gross sales revenue holding that lost profits were covered where the insureds product a motor used in a treadmill was defective and caused lost profits on the sale of the treadmills holding past profits coupled with other facts and circumstances may establish lost profits