to “make things right” by his own calculations based on the price he paid per square foot times the missing 625 square feet. According to Matheus, the square footage was important to him in purchasing the house because he wanted to be close to the house he planned to build, and that he wanted to sell it for at least what he put into it after making planned changes to the inside. Matheus’s testimony affirmatively reflected that he was referring to the intrinsic value of the property to him for his personal purposes, rather than the fair market value. As such, his testimony was irrelevant to the proper measure of damages either based on benefit-of-the-bargain or out-of-pocket loss, and constituted no evidence of the market value of the property as received. Porras, 675 S.W.2d at 505 (<HOLDING>); Ford Motor Co., 125 S.W.3d at 803 (holding
holding testimony of owner referring to personal rather than market value irrelevant and no evidence even absent objection 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 that a retained equity interest is property even if it has no market value holding recovery precluded absent evidence of market value of vehicle when received