Protection Act. The verdict form utilized in this case is simply too ambiguous and incomplete to support such a conclusion. Without a clear record of the theories supporting the jury’s finding of liability, we cannot determine which form of enhanced damages is warranted in this case. Accordingly, we have no choice but to remand this ease for a new trial in which the issues can be clearly articulated and a decisive verdict can be rendered. Upon remand, the trial court should make every effort to comply with the guidelines set forth in this opinion and to facilitate the plaintiffs’ election of remedies in the event they become entitled to both punitive damages and treble damages under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Costs of this appeal are taxed equally 1006, 1012 (1990) (<HOLDING>); Ace Chem. Corp., v. DSI Transports, Inc., 115
holding that trial court erred by requiring plaintiff to select which remedy to submit to the jury because plaintiff was allowed to elect its remedy between punitive damages and statutory treble after the jurys verdict on all claims was rendered holding that a plaintiff may receive both treble damages under rico and state law punitive damages for the same course of conduct 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 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 both punitive and treble damages were recoverable under the texas deceptive trade practices act because each of the plaintiffs claims resulted from a distinct act however because the plaintiff suffered only one compensable injury she could only be awarded one recovery for actual compensatory damages