Appellees contracted to purchase appellant's home but did not consummate the purchase, which led appellant to sue them for damages for breach of contract. The trial court granted summary judgment in appellant's favor on the issue of liability, but this court reversed that judgment in Jones v. Quigley, 169 Ga. App. 862 (315 SE2d 59) (1984). Before trial, appellees filed a motion in limine to establish the proper measure of damages and to restrict the evidence of damages appellant would be allowed to offer at trial. The trial court, citing Hood v. Hallman, 143 Ga. App. 507, 508 ( 239 SE2d 194) (1977), granted the motion, stating that the proper "measure of damages for breach of contract to sell land is the difference between the contract price and the fair market value at the time of the breach." His application for interlocutory review having been granted, appellant cites the trial court's ruling as error. We affirm. " 'Damages growing out of a breach of contract, in order to form a basis for recovery, must be such as could be traced solely to breach, be capable of exact computation, must have arisen according to the usual course of things, and be such as the parties contemplated [when the contract was made] as a probable result of such breach.' [Cit.]" (Emphasis supplied.) Crawford & Assoc. v. Groves-Keen, Inc., 127 Ga. App. 646, 650 ( 194 SE2d 499) (1972); OCGA 13-6-2. | 
