1. Some footnotes have been editorially deleted, the numbering is as in the original. Editorial summaries of portions of the decision are in brackets. Editorial deletions of text are indicated by three dots.
1. Ordinarily, a party who has been fraudulently induced to enter into a contract or sale has a choice of remedies. He may repudiate the contract, and tendering back what he has received under it, may recover what he had parted with or its value; or he may affirm the contract, keeping whatever property or advantage he has derived under it, and may recover in an action for deceit the damages caused by the fraud. ... We are dealing with employment contracts, and it is impossible for Food Lion to tender back what it received under those contracts. In other words, Dale wrapped meat and Barnett worked at the deli counter. Food Lion kept those services, and there is no way to tender them back. Because Food Lion cannot satisfy the "tender back" element of Daniel Boone's repudiation remedy, it is left with a basic fraud claim for money damages, which, as we have said, fails for lack of proof of injurious reliance. 3. As we have already mentioned, Food Lion acknowledged at trial that it could not quantify actual damages on this claim. The jury was therefore instructed that it could award only nominal damages.