sales to Dixie-Narco. Inasmuch as Vantage has not produced sufficient evidence that De Amertek made any representation regarding Vantage’s entitlement to post-termination commissions, summary judgment was appropriate on Vantage’s fraudulent inducement claim. C. Finally, Vantage claims that the district court erred by granting summary judgment on its unfair and deceptive trade practices claim. Vantage’s unfair and deceptive trade practices claim is premised on the alleged fraudulent representation regarding Vantage’s entitlement to commissions on post-termination sales and on an alleged “nefarious scheme to deprive [Vantage] of rightfully earned commissions.” (Appellant’s Br. at 36); Olivetti Corp. v. Ames Business Systems, Inc., 81 N.C.App. 1, 344 S.E.2d 82, 95 (N.C.Ct.App. 1986) (<HOLDING>), aff'd in part and rev’d in part on other
holding that north carolinas longarm statute extends to the limits of due process holding that actual reliance is not required to establish injury under nc gen stat  5863151 2001 which governs the unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the business of insurance holding that proof of fraud necessarily establishes a violation of north carolinas unfair and deceptive trade practices statute nc gemstat  7511 holding that recovery under the north carolina unfair and deceptive trade practices act  is limited to those situations when a plaintiff can show that plaintiff detrimentally relied upon a statement or misrepresentation and he or she suffered actual injury as a proximate result of defendants deceptive statement or misrepresentation  holding that statutory damages were appropriate for each discrete violation of that states deceptive trade practices act