A developer will typically secure a "construction loan" from an institutional lender (such as a bank) to finance construction of a project, with the expectation that the developer will, upon completion of construction, have secured a "take-out" loan, often from another lender, to pay off the construction loan.  The construction loan is therefore considered an interim loan to be replaced by a permanent, generally long term, take-out loan.  The constructioan loan will typically bear a higher rate of interest than the take-out loan.  Here, the construction lender was SeaFirst Mortgage Corporation and interest on the construction loan appears to have been 17.5%.  It appears as if Fisher had approached AMB for a take-out loan, but AMB was only willing to participate in (to the extent of 10%) but not fully fund the take-out loan.  The opinion does not tell us whether Fisher was ultimately able to procure a take-out loan from another lender.   Perhaps the construction lender was willing to take out its own construction loan.   In any event, Fisher was likely paying more in interest for a longer period of time than he had anticipated after obtaining the commitment from Kennedy and AMB.  Would this increased amount of interest be his measure of damages for breach of contract by Kennedy?