In Buist v. C. Dudley DeVelbiss Corp. (1960) 182 Cal.App.2d 325, the defendant sold the plaintiffs a residence concealing the fact the house was built on a lot in a slide area with underground water and inadequately compacted fill. The plaintiffs sued for fraud and presented evidence that "the market value of the property was zero." (Buist v. C. Dudley DeVelbiss Corp., supra, 182 Cal.App.2d at p. 334.) The plaintiffs recovered as damages the purchase price and the value of landscaping expenses they incurred that were damaged by subsidence on the lot. In affirming the judgment, the appellate court rejected the defendant's contention "the respondents should not have been permitted to both recover damages and retain the property." (Id. at p. 333.) "The actual value of property may be determined by the trial court from evidence of the reasonable market value or of actual or intrinsic value. . . . 'The unqualified language of section 3343 indicates that the plaintiff should receive as damages the difference in value between everything with which he parted and everything he received, and the statute contains nothing to show that the difference must be calculated solely on the basis of the facts existing at the time the contract was made or performed. The section must be applied realistically so as to give the defrauded person his actual out-of-pocket loss, and, where necessary, to reach that result, the court must consider subsequent circumstances . . . .' When these rules are applied to the facts of the instant case, there can be no question that the trial court properly assessed the measure of damages as the difference between the amount paid for the realty and the actual value of the property received." (Id. at pp. 334-335.)