With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". CURIAM. Following a no contest plea to charges of burglary of a dwelling and petit theft, defendant K.T. was placed on probation and ordered to pay restitution. In this appeal, K.T. challenges the order of restitution, arguing the evidence was insufficient to establish the fair market value of the stolen items at the time of the theft. Accepting the State’s concession of error, we reverse the order of restitution and remand for further proceedings. See Thompson v. State, 68 So.3d 425, 426 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (stating “amount of restitution is established through evidence of fair market value of the stolen items at the time of the theft” and listing factors to be considered, including depreciation); Soriano v. State, 968 So.2d 112, 114-15 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (<HOLDING>). Reversed and Remanded. STEVENSON, CIKLIN and

A: holding damage award resulting from a breach of an agreement to purchase securities is the difference between the contract price and the fair market value of the asset at the time of the breach
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 the amount of restitution is limited to the victims actual losses 
D: holding victims unsubstantiated opinion or speculation as to fair market value at the time of the theft is insufficient to sustain a restitution order
D.