It may be that no market exists at the place where delivery was due. The nearest available market furnishes the basis under such circumstances; the expense of obtaining and transporting the goods from that market to the place where delivery is due being added. 31 It will not infrequently happen that goods have no market value or none which can be determined with any exactness. Wherever goods are of a special .kind or are of a peculiarly good or bad grade or quality, this is likely to occur. In such a case the court must determine the value of the goods as best it can by considering the expense to the buyer of securing similar goods, or goods which would equally well serve the purpose;32 or by the loss of profit suffered,33 or the added expense incurred.34 If the goods have no value whatever, the buyer can never be entitled to more than nominal damages; 35 and as the burden is on the buyer to prove his damages, if he fails to prove the market price, or some other appropriate measure of damages, his recovery is only nominal.36
62 Iowa, 114, 17 N. W. 174; Merriman v. Machine Co., 96 Wis. 600, 71 N. W. 1050; Anderson v. Savoy, 142 Wis. 127, 124 N. W. 1063. The result is the same if the plaintiff fails to prove a market price or that this standard is inapplicable. Harman v. Washington Fuel Co., 228 HI. 296, 81 N. E. .1017.
31 Grand Tower Co. v. Phillips, 23 Wall. 471, 23 L. Ed. 71; Marshall v. Clark, 78 Conn. 9, 60 Atl. 741; Capen v. Glass Co., 105 111. 185; Tuttle Chapman Coal Co. v. Coaldale Fuel Co., 136 la. 382, 113 N. W. 827; South Gardiner Lumber Co. v. Bradstreet, 97 Me. 165, 53 Atl. 1110; National Tar Co. v. Gaslight Co., 189 Mass. 234, 75 N. E. 625; Cahen v. Piatt, 69 N. Y. 348, 25 Am. Rep. 203; Nottingham Coal & Ice Co. v. Preas, 102 Va. 820, 47 S. E. 823.
32Wilmoth v. Hamilton, 127 Fed. 48, 61 C. C. A. 584; Vulcan Iron Works v. Roquemore, 175 Fed. 11, 99 C. C. A. 77; Bell v. Reynolds, 78 Ala. 511, 56 Am. Rep. 52; Jordan v. Patterson, 67 Conn. 473, 35 Atl.
521; Johnston v. Faxon, 172 Mass. 466, 52 N. E. 539; F. W. Kavanaugh Mfg. Co. v. Rosen, 132 Mich. 44, 92 N. W. 788, 102 Am. St. Rep. 378; Ideal Wrench Co. v. Garvin Machine Co., 92 N. Y. App. Div. 187, 87 N. Y. S. 41, 181 N. Y. 573, 74 N. E. 1118; McHose v. Fulmer, 73 Pa. St 965; Davis v. School Furniture Co., 41 W. Va. 717, 24 S. E. 630. In Hinde v. Iiddell, L. R. 10 Q. B. 265, the court took into consideration the expense of obtaining a substitute for the goods contracted for. But an unnecessarily expensive substitute can not be taken as the measure of the buyer's damages. Warren 'v. Stoddart, 105 U. S. 224, 26 L. Ed. 1117.
33 Talcott v. Freedman, 149 Mich. 577, 113 N. W. 13; Eddy v. F*y Fruit Co. (R. I.), 67 AtL 586.
34 British Ac. Mfg. Co. v. Underground Ac. Electric Co.  A. C. 673.
35 Barnes v. Brown, 130 N. Y. 372; 29 N. E. 760.
In many cases the plaintiff's damage may exceed the difference between the contract and the market price. In what cases such special or consequential damage can be recovered will be considered in other sections.37