In this case, the court instructed the jury only to find the amount of damages plaintiff suffered as a result of the breach. There was no mention of interest. Since the court and attorneys said nothing about interest, it is presumed that the jury did not include it in their award. We see no need to address the remaining assignments of error proposed by defendants, as they may or may not arise for determination when this case is tried again. If so, we have confidence that the trial judge will decide them correctly.
Plaintiff sets forth several assignments of error as well.
He finds error in the trial court's failure to submit his conversion, trespass, unfair and deceptive trade practices and tortious breach of contract claims to the jury. Both parties and this Court recognize this failure in essence to be a directed verdict on these issues. To survive a motion for a directed verdict, the nonmoving party . . . All conflicts in the evidence must be resolved in plaintiff's favor and he is entitled to the benefit of every inference that could reasonably be drawn in his favor. Plaintiff first contends that defendants converted his property by refusing to allow him to remove the walk-in cooler and freezer from the premises.