Rancher agreed to allow Gasco, an oil and natural gas company, to explore for gas reserves on Ranch. Rancher and Gasco signed a contract in which Gasco agreed to complete its gas exploration and restore Ranch to its pre-exploration condition by March 31 of the following year. Gasco immediately began exploring for gas on Ranch. By March 31 of the following year, Gasco had completed its exploration but chose not to restore Ranch to its pre-exploration condition. Rancher sued Gasco for breach of contract. At trial, an expert for Rancher testified that because of Gasco's failure to promptly restore Ranch to its pre-exploration condition, it would cost $500,000 and take three years to restore Ranch. An expert for Gasco testified that Ranch was worth only $20,000 less in its unrestored condition than if it had been restored to its pre-exploration condition. The trial court found that there was an enforceable contract between the parties and that Gasco had breached the contract by failing to restore Ranch. The court awarded Rancher $500,000 for the cost of restoring Ranch to its pre-exploration condition and $300,000 for his losses. Did the court err in awarding Rancher the cost of restoring Ranch to its pre-exploration condition?