In the preceding sections it is assumed that the seller has acquired at the time of the breach the goods to which the contract relates, but owing to the defendant's repudiation this may not be the case. None or only part of the goods may yet have been acquired. If those not yet acquired must have been bought in the market by the plaintiff, the market price still furnishes the test of the value of the plaintiff's performance which must be deducted from the contract price to determine the amount of the defendant's liability. If, however, by the terms of the contract the plaintiff was to manufacture the goods, or if the defendant had notice when the contract was made that he planned to manufacture, the cost to the plaintiff of so doing (which may be much less than the market price of the completed goods) furnishes the test.15 That the seller cannot enhance damages by unnecessarily manufacturing the goods after a total breach or repudiation has been previously considered.18 This rule based on cost of manufacture is not the less applicable because at the time of the breach the plaintiff had on hand goods of the description called for by the contract which he intended to appropriate to the contract. He had a right to change his mind, and he had a right to make sales to as many persons as would deal with him. Only where the plaintiff could not have manufactured other goods to fulfill the contract will the market value of what he has on hand be the amount to deduct from the contract price.