NEUMANN, Justice.

Ray and Betty Jean Delzer appealed from a district court judgment granting United Bank's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and conditionally granting a new trial. We reverse the judgment notwithstanding the verdict, affirm the grant of a new trial, and remand for a new trial.

The facts underlying this appeal are reported in Delzer v. United Bank of Bismarck, 459 N.W.2d 752 (N.D. 1990) [ Delzer I] and Delzer v. United Bank of Bismarck, 484 N.W.2d 502 (N.D. 1992) [ Delzer II], and will be repeated only as necessary to resolve the issues raised in this appeal.

In October 1979 Delzers and United discussed two plans for United to extend Delzers a line of credit for their ranching business. Delzers initially requested a $150,000 line of credit to finance their operating expenses, with current hay inventory and future hay sales to secure that loan. According to Delzers, United would not loan them the money without additional security, and Delzers refused to pledge all of their assets as security for the loan unless United assured them of an additional $122,500 to purchase cattle. Delzers then proposed a cattle plan, which provided for a $300,000 line of credit to finance Delzers' operating expenses and their purchase of cattle. According to United's loan comments, the collateral for that proposed loan was a security agreement on Delzers' machinery and equipment, a second mortgage on their land, and a guaranty from their son. On November 1, 1979, Delzers executed a written credit agreement with United and signed a promissory note for $150,000. As collateral for that loan, United obtained security agreements on Delzers' machinery and equipment, a second mortgage on their land, and a guaranty from their son.

United subsequently refused to advance Delzers money beyond the $150,000 loan. Delzers then sued United, alleging that, in conjunction with the written agreement, United breached an oral agreement to lend them an additional $150,000 to purchase cattle. They also contended that United deceived them by promising to fund their cattle purchase when it had no intention of performing that promise. United responded that the written credit agreement constituted the complete and final agreement between the parties.

In Delzer I, we reversed summary judgment in favor of United. We held that the statute of frauds did not bar enforcement of the alleged oral agreement for an additional $150,000 loan, because the alleged agreement was capable of being completed within one year under N.D.C.C. § 9-06-04(1). We also held that the written agreement for a $150,000 line of credit was ambiguous and not clearly integrated, leaving a genuine issue of material fact about whether United agreed to provide Delzers with an additional $150,000 line of credit to purchase cattle. We further held that the record was sufficient to support reasonable inferences about the terms of the alleged oral agreement. We therefore remanded for trial.

In Delzer II, a majority of this court reversed a second summary judgment in favor of United. We held that a letter, which was sent by Ray Delzer to the first mortgagee of the Delzers' land and which was not part of the record in Delzer I, failed to remove all ambiguity about the written agreement. We reiterated that the written agreement was ambiguous and again remanded for trial.

On remand, the trial court bifurcated the issues of liability and damages. After a jury trial on liability, the jury returned a special verdict:

"1. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that on or before November 1, 1979, United Bank made a binding oral contract to lend $150,000 to plaintiffs for the purchase of cattle as part of an agreement to loan the total sum of $300,000? Yes _ No X

* * * * * *

"4. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that the Bank knowingly deceived the Delzers into giving all their property as security for the $300,000 loan when the bank knew it was only going to loan them the sum of $150,000? Yes X No _"

Claiming those answers were inconsistent and there was insufficient evidence to support the deceit verdict, United moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on Delzers' deceit claim, and, alternatively, for a new trial. The trial court initially denied United's motion, explaining that a factual basis for the finding of deceit possibly could have been:

"The bank advised the Delzers that they were loaning $300,000 for the collateral in question. Some time between that statement and the loan closing, the bank altered its position and determined they were going to only loan $150,000. At the time of the loan closing, the information was never communicated to the Delzers and, in fact, the bank continued to make statements regarding cattle purchases which indicated to the Delzers they were still going to receive the $300,000. The bank knowingly made such statements to obtain the collateral in question. Ultimately, the bank advised them that no further monies would be forthcoming."

The trial court thereafter reconsidered its decision and concluded that there was no factual scenario which would allow the jury to find deceit after not finding an oral contract, reasoning:

"If the factual situation is as the plaintiff suggests, the contract nonetheless would have been formed and the jury would have found that an oral contract existed. The words and conduct of the bank would have superseded any undisclosed intent and the meeting of the minds as required by contract law would have resulted.

"Had the jury answered the [deceit] question . . . in the negative, no harm would have followed. However, the answer is, under the circumstances, inconsistent and cannot be allowed to stand. I have previously indicated facts which I felt would result in the allowance of such a verdict. I find now that I was incorrect. I am satisfied that the principles set forth in Holt v. Swenson, [ 252 Minn. 510] 90 N.W.2d 724 (Minn1958) show that under the factual scenario I proposed, a contract existed. The jury failed to so find and the two answers are total[ly] inconsistent.

"In reaching this determination, I have attempted to place great deference to the findings of the jury in this case. However, I believe the Court misled them in allowing them to answer Question Number 4 [the deceit question] on the basis of the evidence in the record and without finding that the [defendant] had breached [its] oral agreement. In that respect, it was confusing and misleading to the jury.

* * * * * *

"I am now satisfied that no independent cause of action existed in tort. The only facts presented to the jury were those which alleged the formation of a contract. Once the jury ruled on that issue, it was err[or] for me to allow them to make further determinations."

The trial court granted United's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on Delzers' deceit claim and also conditionally granted a new trial on that claim in the event of reversal of the judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Delzers appealed.

Delzers argue that the tort of deceit may exist independently of the contract claim and that, under the trial court's instructions on contract and deceit, the verdict is not inconsistent. United responds that the jury's verdict is inconsistent and that the trial court properly granted judgment as a matter of law on the deceit claim, because there was no evidence of deceit independent of the contract claim and there were no damages under Delzers' over-collateralization theory of deceit.

Our analysis of these issues requires a brief explanation of "fraud" and "deceit." Under our statutory definitions of "fraud" and "deceit," the same conduct, a promise made without any intention of performing, can constitute both "deceit" and "fraud." Compare N.D.C.C. § 9-03-08(4) with § 9-10-02(4). See Dewey v. Lutz, 462 N.W.2d 435 (N.D. 1990). Although the same conduct can be both deceitful and fraudulent and those terms are often used interchangeably, technically "fraud" under Chapter 9-03, N.D.C.C., applies to parties to a contract, while "deceit" under Chapter 9-10, N.D.C.C., applies where there is no contract between the parties. Dewey v. Lutz, supra; Hellman v. Thiele, 413 N.W.2d 321 (N.D. 1987).

Under Chapter 9-03, N.D.C.C., "[a] promise made without any intention of performing it" and with intent to deceive or to induce another to enter into a contract is "actual fraud" for purposes of nullifying apparent free consent to the contract. N.D.C.C. §§ 9-03-01, 9-03-03, and 9-03-08(4). If there is a contract between the parties and a party's apparent free consent to the contract is obtained by fraud, N.D.C.C. § 9-03-02 authorizes the defrauded party to rescind the contract in the manner prescribed by Chapter 9-09, N.D.C.C. The defrauded party may also affirm the contract and recover damages. Schaff v. Kennelly, 61 N.W.2d 538 (N.D. 1953); Beare v. Wright, 14 N.D. 26, 103 N.W. 632 (1905); see Restatement (Second) of Torts § 549 (1977); Calamari and Perillo, Contracts § 9-23 (3rd ed. 1987); Dobbs, Remedies § 9.1 et seq. (1973); Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 110 (5th ed. 1984); 37 Am.Jur.2d, Fraud and Deceit § 327 (1968).

Under Chapter 9-10, N.D.C.C., if there is no contract between the parties, "[o]ne who willfully deceives another with intent to induce him to alter his position to his injury or risk is liable for any damage which he thereby suffers," and "deceit" is defined as "[a] promise made without any intention of performing." N.D.C.C. §§ 9-10-01, 9-10-02(4), and 9-10-03. Under those statutes, a promise made without any intention of performing it which does not meet the requirements of a contract between the parties may nevertheless satisfy the requirements of deceit, and the victim of that deceit may recover for any damage suffered.

United's reliance on Pioneer Fuels v. Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., 474 N.W.2d 706 (N.D. 1991), to support its argument that conduct independent of a contract claim is required to establish the tort of deceit is misplaced. In Pioneer Fuels the plaintiff alleged that the defendant breached a contract with the plaintiff, that the breach constituted the tort of deceit, and that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for breach of contract and for the tort of deceit, as well as exemplary damages. The jury found that the defendant breached the contract, resulting in breach of contract damages of $76,597.04. The jury further found that the defendant's breach of contract was done with malice, fraud, deceit or oppression, resulting in tort damages of $76,597.04. The jury also awarded exemplary damages of $1,800,000.00, on the tort claim. The trial court sustained the verdict on the breach of contract claim, but granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the tort and exemplary damage claims. This court affirmed the judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the tort and the exemplary damage claims, because there was no evidence that the defendant "committed an independent tort, separate and distinct from its breach of contract." Id. at 710.

Pioneer Fuels stands for the principle that, where there is a breach of contract, there must be some additional, independent facts not connected to the manner of the breach of contract to support tort and exemplary damage claims. See 22 Am.Jur.2d, Damages § 752 (1988) (exemplary damages ordinarily not recoverable in action for breach of contract, unless breach amounts to an independent, willful tort). However, when the parties' actions do not meet the requirements for a contract, Pionner Fuels does not preclude tort recovery for deceit, if the elements of deceit under Chapter 9-10, N.D.C.C., are established. See Dewey v. Lutz, supra (even if some defendants were not parties to contract, there was sufficient evidence to support jury's alternative findings of deceit by those defendants); State Bank of Kenmare v. Lindberg, 471 N.W.2d 470 (N.D. 1991) (allegations of extra-contractual statements by lender which induced borrower to alter position sounds in tort).

Here, the jury found there was no oral contract to lend Delzers an additional $150,000, but that United knowingly deceived the Delzers. Pioneer Fuels is not controlling because the jury found that the elements of an oral contract to loan an additional $150,000 had not been met, but that United's actions regarding the alleged additional $150,000 loan satisfied the requirements for deceit. When there is no contract between the parties, Pioneer Fuels and our statutory provisions for deceit do not preclude tort recovery if the separate elements of deceit are established. See Dewey v. Lutz, supra. The problem present in Pioneer Fuels — the only evidence presented to support the tort claim was evidence of the breach of a contract — is not present here. In granting the judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the trial court erred in concluding that the tort of deceit could not exist in the absence of a contract.

The trial court also determined that the jury's answers to the special verdict were inconsistent. In reconciling apparent inconsistencies in a jury's answers to a special verdict, the test is:

"`Whether the answers may fairly be said to represent a logical and probable decision on the relevant issues as submitted. If after a review of the district court's judgment no reconciliation is possible and the inconsistency is such that the special verdict will not support the judgment entered below or any other judgment, then the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.'"

Binstock v. Fort Yates Pub. School District, 463 N.W.2d 837, 839-40 (N.D. 1990) (emphasis in original) citing Grenz v. Kelsch, 436 N.W.2d 552, 553 (N.D. 1989). To determine if the verdict can be reconciled, we look at how the relevant issues were submitted to the jury, and jury instructions that are not objected to become the law of the case. Grenz v. Kelsch, supra.

The trial court instructed the jury on the elements of contract and on deceit. United initially proposed the contract instructions, which tracked NDJI-Civil 800. Delzers did not object to the contract instructions, and they became the law of the case. The contract instructions said that an essential element of a contract was "[c]onsent of the parties." See N.D.C.C. § 9-01-02. The instructions specified that "[c]onsent is not mutual unless both the parties agree upon the same terms and conditions in the same sense" and "[t]o constitute consent, the acceptance must be absolute and unqualified." See N.D.C.C. §§ 9-03-01; 9-03-16; 9-03-17; 9-03-20; 9-03-21.

In determining that the jury verdict was inconsistent, the trial court relied on the principle that the parties' objective manifestations, not their secret intentions, governed their mutual consent and acceptance of terms of a binding oral contract. The trial court concluded that, if the factual situation was as suggested by Delzers, United's words and conduct would have superseded any undisclosed intent and a contractual meeting of the minds would have resulted. However, the contract instructions, which are the law of the case, said that "acceptance must be absolute and unqualified" and did not allow for a meeting of the minds through the parties' objective manifestations.

Under the instructions, the jury could have logically found that there was no mutual consent to the alleged oral agreement between Delzers and United because United secretly intended not to perform, and therefore there was not an absolute and unqualified acceptance. The jury could also logically have found that United made certain extra-contractual promises which it did not intend to perform and which did not meet the requirement of an "absolute and unqualified" acceptance, but nevertheless satisfied the requisites for the tort of deceit under Chapter 9-10, N.D.C.C. See State Bank of Kenmare v. Lindberg, 471 N.W.2d 470 (N.D. 1991) (allegations of extra-contractual statements by lender which induced borrower to alter position sounds in tort). We hold that, in concluding that the jury verdict was inconsistent and granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the deceit claim, the trial court erred in relying on the parties' objective manifestations for mutual consent when the jury had not been instructed about consent in that manner.

Deceit is ordinarily not susceptible of direct proof and may be inferred from the circumstances. Dewey v. Lutz, supra; Miller Enterprises, Inc. v. Dog N'Cat Centers of America, 447 N.W.2d 639 (N.D. 1989). We cannot say, as a matter of law, that United's actions did not constitute deceit. Reasonable persons could not reach but one conclusion about United's actions, and we hold that the trial court erred in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the deceit claim. Okken v. Okken, 325 N.W.2d 264 (N.D. 1982).

With its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, United alternatively moved for a new trial on the ground that the deceit verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The trial court conditionally granted the motion, ruling that there was insufficient evidence to have allowed the issue of deceit to go to the jury.

In considering a motion for new trial on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the trial court has a certain amount of discretion to weigh all the evidence and judge the credibility of the witnesses. Okken v. Okken, supra. A motion for a new trial is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its decision to grant a new trial will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of an abuse of that discretion. Okken v. Okken, supra. We have defined an abuse of discretion to mean action that is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Wall v. Penn. Life Ins. Co., 274 N.W.2d 208 (N.D. 1979). Because the denial of a new trial brings the case to an end, whereas the granting of a new trial results in the trial of the case to another jury, we require a strong showing that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the motion for a new trial before we will reverse an order granting the motion. Okken v. Okken, supra.

Using this more lenient standard of review, we conclude that the trial court did not act in an unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable manner in granting a new trial on the deceit claim and therefore did not abuse its discretion. However, because questions about representations to form a contract are intertwined with questions about representations for deceit, we conclude that a new trial on the contract claim is also necessary.

Delzers also argue that the trial court erred in bifurcating the issues of liability and damages and in ruling on the admissibility of certain evidence. Those matters involve the exercise of discretion by the trial court. On this record, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion. However, the court is free to reconsider those issues if they arise on retrial.

We reverse the judgment notwithstanding the verdict, affirm the grant of a new trial, and remand for new trial in accordance with this opinion.

VANDE WALLE, C.J., and SANDSTROM, MESCHKE, JJ. concur.