The paragraph before says:
The purpose of damages in suits on contracts is at best to place the
injured party in as nearly as possible the same position he would
have been in had the contract been properly performed, and at least
to restore him as nearly as possible to the position he would have
been in had he made no contract at all. In other words, no one
should suffer loss because another has failed to perform a contract
properly.
If the contract had been performed (In this particular thread's facts, I'm not sure there was a contract.) the OP would have a thing for a price. The thing was not sold so OP buys another thing and his damages or "loss" from what would happen if the contract was property performed is the difference in price. He does have damages. He does have an actual loss. How much may be difficult to prove as there is the problem of finding the cover price. (Which is far easier with fungible and/or new items.)
I believe the provisions of the UCC regarding goods would apply. The specific portions related only to merchants would not. Of course, "UCC" wouldn't, but the Florida statutes reflecting the UCC would. Rather than 2-712, I would have chosed 2-713 enacted in Florida as 672.713.
---------------------------
672.713 Buyer's damages for nondelivery or repudiation.--
(1) Subject to the provisions of this chapter with respect to proof of market price (s. 672.723), the measure of damages for nondelivery or repudiation by the seller is the difference between the market price at the time when the buyer learned of the breach and the contract price together with any incidental and consequential damages provided in this chapter (s. 672.715), but less expenses saved in consequence of the seller's breach.
(2) Market price is to be determined as of the place for tender or, in cases of rejection after arrival or revocation of acceptance, as of the place of arrival.