With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". he knew that the house appraised for more than what he was paying before closing. The appraisal, admitted into evidence without objection, placed a fair market value on the property of $347,000.00 at the time of closing, at the lesser but correct number of 3595 square feet. Thus, Matheus received property with a greater value than he bargained for even though it contained fewer square feet. Multiplying the price paid per square foot as represented by the number of square feet of the deficiency is not necessary to make Matheus whole. Instead, it would overcompensate him. We, along with the Timmons court, note that the measure of damages sought to be invoked here has been used previously. In Cameron v. Terrell & Garrett, Inc., the Texas Supreme Co 32 (Tex.Civ. App.-El Paso 1952, no writ) (<HOLDING>); Moss-Tate Inv. Co. v. Owens, 22 S.W.2d 1096,

A: holding that government was not entitled to recover for defective pricing because contractors erroneous inclusion of 209825 in its proposed overhead did not have a significant impact on price
B: holding that a maximum vertical price maintenance scheme is not per se illegal
C: holding vendee entitled to recover price per acre for shortage in realty sold by the acre
D: holding that plaintiff could recover money mistakenly paid in excess of contract price
C.