Whether repair costs can satisfy the proof requirement depends entirely on the sufficiency and reliability of the evidence presented in the context of the individual case

Fried Group, Inc. v. Sundance Tractor & Mower, 218 B.R. 247, 1998 Bankr. LEXIS 193 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1998). Under Fed. R. Evid. 701, the buyer of motor home could give lay testimony as to market value of motor home following repairs performed by the seller and the buyer’s market value opinion was relevant because the seller conceded that the market for the type of motor home at issue was extremely individualized and the buyers represented half of the entire market for that type of motor home during the year that it was purchased; the sales contract was relevant evidence on the issue of damages because the purchase price of the motor home was evidence of its value as warranted. Gill v. Bluebird Body Co., No. 5:02-CV-328, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4611 (M.D. Ga. Jan. 21, 2005). Consequential Damages Lost profits. — Loss of profits from destruction or interruption of established business may be recovered if amount of actual loss is rendered reasonably certain by competent proof. Each case must be examined to see if under its particular facts the profits involved are capable of reasonable ascertainment. United States ex rel. Fram Corp. v. Crawford, 443 F.2d 611, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11073 (5th Cir. 1971). Lost profits, if supported by proper proof, are recoverable as consequential damages from a breach of warranty. Multivision N.W., Inc. v. Jerrold Elecs. Corp., 356 F. Supp. 207, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12545 (N.D. Ga. 1972). Value of car not established for purposes of determining damages. — Buyer did not produce admissible evidence of actual damages sufficient to preclude summary judgment as evidence that a car was defective, alone, did not establish the value of the goods as accepted for purposes of determining damages for breach of warranty; the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the buyer’s affidavit did not show a sufficient opportunity for forming a correct opinion as to damages and a proper basis for expressing the buyer’s opinion. Ficklin v. Hyundai Motor Am., Inc., 272 Ga. App. 61, 611 S.E.2d 732, 2005 Ga. App. LEXIS 217 (2005). Exclusion of damages not unconscionable. — After a car owner brought a breach of warranty claim under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq., the trial court erred in denying a car manufacturer’s motion to exclude evidence of incidental and consequential damages, as recovery of those damages was excluded by the vehicle’s warranty, pursuant to O.C.G.A. §§ 11-2714(3) and 11-2-715, and the exclusion was not found to be unconscionable. Lee v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 276 Ga. App. 28, 622 S.E.2d 361, 2005 Ga. App. LEXIS 1022 (2005).