A more thorough explanation:

Election of remedies is the act of choosing between inconsistent remedies allowed by law on the same set of facts. The purpose of this act is to prevent double recovery for a single wrong.

For example, if someone steals something from you, you have two options for remedies:

• You can choose to have the stolen item returned to you.
• You can choose to be compensated with the equivalent amount of money.

However, you cannot choose both remedies. You must choose one or the other.

The election of remedies doctrine is a doctrine of estoppel. This means that if a party has two co-existing but inconsistent remedies and elects to pursue one remedy to a conclusion, they may not sue for the other remedy.

For example, if someone chooses to have the stolen item returned to them and the case is settled, they cannot then sue for compensation with the equivalent amount of money.

However, if there is no inconsistency among multiple remedies, the doctrine is not applied. For example, if someone chooses to have the stolen item returned to them and then seeks further relief, the doctrine is not applied.

Overall, the election of remedies is an important concept in law that ensures fairness and prevents double recovery.