With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". with both of the courts below that the record in this ease contains no competent proof of damages, and that, therefore, plaintiffs attempt to recover more than nominal damages runs aground. Consequently, we affirm the judgment for substantially the reasons articulated in the bankruptcy court’s rescript, see In re Newport Offshore, Ltd., supr'a, and endorsed in the district court’s bench decision. We pause only to add five observations. First: Plaintiff, having jettisoned its trial counsel, takes a new tack on appeal. It insists that the record contains evidence of what it paid to NOL; that Rhode Island law permits restitution as a measure of damages where a contracting party’s performance has proven valueless, see, e.g., National Chain Co. v. Campbell, 487 A.2d 132, 135 (R.I.1985) (<HOLDING>); and that it was entitled to recover at least

A: holding failure to raise issue of improper measure of damages in trial court waived review of complaints that proper measure of damages was not submitted to jury and that plaintiff failed to present evidence on the proper measure
B: 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
C: recognizing possible applicability of restitutionary measure of damages when the contractors performance is worthless and the work has to be redone completely
D: holding that the measure of damages of converted property is the market value at the time of conversion
C.