Did the defendant, Mehmet . . . Was the plaintiff . . . Was the plaintiff . Defendants filed motions that same date to set aside the verdict, for new trial, and for JNOV or new trial. The trial court denied these motions 13 May 1997, and defendants thereafter filed timely notice of appeal.
Defendants contend the trial court erroneously denied their motions attacking the jury verdict.
According to defendants, punitive damages were recoverable by plaintiff only as to the assault count, and not as to those counts upon which plaintiff had foregone an award of compensatory damages and elected the remedy of rescission, i.e., fraud, undue influence and duress. In light of plaintiff's election of rescission withregard to those claims, defendants continue, the trial court erred in submitting a punitive damages issue thereon. Defendants note they objected to the trial court's listing of the punitive damages issue following all the substantive issues rather than immediately following the assault charge. It is well-established that a party alleging fraud must elect either the remedy of rescission or that of damages, but may not seek both, as these remedies are inconsistent. 93 N.C. App.