With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". irregularities in the sale process precluded summary judgment in favor of the Rogerses. To Set Aside Sale, Irregularities Must Result in Grossly Inadequate Price It is the policy of the law to sustain execution sales, rather than to set them aside based on “mere irregularities occurring in the procedure by which those sales are made.” Burnam v. Blocker, 247 S.W.2d 432, 434 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1952, writ ref'd); see Apex Fin. Corp. v. Brown, 7 S.W.3d 820, 827 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1999, no pet.) (citing Bumam). The party seeking to set aside an execution sale must prove (1) that the consideration received at the sale is grossly inadequate and (2) that irregularities in the sale tended to contribute to the inadequate price. See Stanglin v. Keda Dev. Corp., 713 S.W.2d 94, 95 (Tex.1986) (<HOLDING>); Am. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Musick, 531 S.W.2d

A: holding that there was no evidence of market value where owners testimony affirmatively showed that it was based on personal value
B: 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
C: holding that execution sale of three tracts in bulk was irregularity that caused grossly inadequate consideration because market value of one lot or two lots at the most might have satisfied underlying indebtedness
D: recognizing that mere proximity or possibility of an integrated use of two separate tracts use will not confer upon the owner a right to severance damages without reasonable probability that the separate tracts could have been combined for such integrated use before the taking
C.