The testimony of the plaintiff, objected to as a matter for an expert, was rationally based upon her perceptions, V.R.E. 701, and fell within the scope of common experience, see South Burlington School District v. Calcagni-Frazier-Zajchowski Architects, Inc., 138 Vt. 33, 46, 410 A.2d 1359, 1365 (1980). Therefore, it was properly admissible.

We find no error in the court’s ruling as to the contract formed or the damages awarded.

Affirmed.