With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549, 556 (Tex.1995). Speculative expert testimony is unreliable. TXI Transp. Co. v. Hughes, 306 S.W.3d 230, 239 (Tex.2010). Dr. Ruhter opined about Dr, Cravens’s lost profits, but in doing so, he assumed that Dr.. Cravens and his business associates would secure millions and millions of dollars in financing at a time when the economy was struggling and uncertain and Dr. Cravens was inclined to push forward while demanding financing terms that were inconsistent with going rates, thus minimizing the number of, but increasing the collateral requirements expected by, potential lenders. Acknowledging this unforgiving reality can lead to only one conclusion: lost profits were not reasonably certain. See Phillips, 475 S.W.3d at 278-80 (<HOLDING>); Barton, 413 S,W.3d at 236-40; see also Sw.

A: holding that evidence of lost profits for purposes of determining fair market value of interest in coalbed methane exploration prospect in bulgaria was speculative
B: holding that there was no evidence of market value where owners testimony affirmatively showed that it was based on personal value
C: holding that fair market value was proper measure of damages for stock brokers breach of margin agreement caused by sale of plaintiffs shares without authorization noting that generally speaking fair market value is proper measure of damages for breach of contract relating to sale of goods which have an ascertamable value on the market
D: holding that the fair market value of a lost license fee may be actual damages within the meaning of  504
A.