With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". proper under the circumstances of this case. EVIDENCE OF DAMAGES UNDER PROPER MEASURE Matheus nevertheless contends that he produced legally sufficient evidence of damages under the benefit-of-the-bargain measure of direct damages. Initially, we disagree with Appellees’ argument that Matheus failed to offer any evidence of the fair market value of the property as represented. After negotiating, the parties settled on a sales price of $343,225. Matheus testified that the final sales price agreed upon reflects a price of $81.37 per square foot for a house represented to contain 4,218 square feet. The price agreed on between two parties is some evidence to support a fact finding on fair market value of property as represented in an action under the DTPA. Ford Motor Co., 125 S.W.3d at 799 (<HOLDING>); Barraza v. Koliba, 933 S.W.2d 164,169

A: holding parties negotiated price of vehicle was evidence of market value as represented
B: holding that if repairs to a firedamaged vehicle with parts of like kind and quality would not restore the vehicle to its former market value the proper measure of damages was the difference in market value before and after the loss
C: holding recovery precluded absent evidence of market value of vehicle when received
D: holding that the market price is understood to mean the current market price being paid for gas at the well where it is produced
A.