Igor Polska, an entrepreneur with varied interests, entered into two contracts with Ishtla Singh. The first was for the sale of goods. Ishtla promised to pay $5000 for a rare book. The second contract was for the rental of a property. Ishtla agreed to take possession for a one-year term beginning on the first day of July. The total rent was to be $36 000, paid in equal monthly instalments. Ishtla moved into the premises on the first day of July and paid $3000 in rent. Within two days, however, she informed Igor that she intended to remain only until the end of that month. She also told him that she had found another copy of the same book elsewhere at a lower price, and that she therefore was unwilling to pay the $5000 as promised. Igor nevertheless insists that he is entitled to the full value of both contracts, which he calculates to be $38 000 ($5000 for the book and $33 000 for the property). Ishtla believes that Igor's position is unreasonable. She relies on the fact that she has already introduced him to one person who is willing to pay $4000 for the book and to another who is willing to occupy the property immediately under a monthly tenancy at a rent of $2000. Is Igor correct? Explain your answer. Do you require additional information to calculate the full value of Ishtla's liability?