the defendants. ANDERSON, C.J., BIRCH, HOLDER, BARKER, JJ., concur. 1 . The record indicates that the terms "intentional misrepresentation,” "fraudulent misrepresentation” and "fraud” were used interchangeably by the court and parties in referring to this cause of action Act will not inhibit plaintiffs from pleading other theories of recovery in addition to the Act, the General Assembly included decisive language in the Act that provides that "[t]he powers and remedies provided in this part shall be cumulative and supplementary to all other powers and remedies otherwise provided by law.” Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-18-112 (1995). See also Myint v. Allstate Ins. Co., 970 S.W.2d 920, 926 (Tenn.1998); Morris v. Mack’s Used Cars, 824 S.W.2d 53 0, 95 Ill.Dec. 510, 489 N.E.2d 1374, 1381 (1986)(<HOLDING>); Hale v. Basin Motor Co., 110 N.M. 314, 795
holding that a plaintiff may receive both treble damages under rico and state law punitive damages for the same course of conduct holding that plaintiff could recover both doubled damages under the state regulation of manufacturers distributors and dealers act and punitive damages in connection with the common law claim because the act expressly allows both types of damages holding that where plaintiffs were entitled to recover both treble damages and punitive damages under the illinois nursing home care reform act both issues could be submitted to the jury and the plaintiff could choose which award to be reflected in the judgment recognizing that an award of treble damages for an antitrust violation and punitive damages for common law tortious interference with business relations based on same conduct would be duplicative holding that punitive and treble damages cannot both be awarded and indicating that a special jury verdict in this situation would be appropriate holding that where a plaintiff is entitled to treble damages under its state unfair trade practices act and to punitive damages under common law claims of fraud trial court should have submitted each theory of recovery to the jury and then allowed plaintiff to elect between the awards with duplicative elements