OPINION ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Appellant Marvin Farber, by counsel, has filed a Petition for Rehearing in this appeal which we deny because all the matters it presents were fully discussed in our original opinion. Cross-Appellant Vernon J. Pe-tri, as Trustee of the Joe Newman Advertising, Inc. Creditors’ Trust (Trustee) also petitions for rehearing of his cross-appeal, claiming the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to submit both the contract and quasi-contract theories for the jury’s consideration.
In support of his position Trustee argues he should not be required to elect at the close of the evidence which of these alternative theories should be considered by the jury. He claims both should have been submitted to the jury so it could determine under which one he was entitled to recover, citing Model Clothing House v. Hirsch (1908), 42 Ind.App. 270, 85 N.E. 719 in support of his position. He postulates he should not be required to “guess” which of these two theories would more likely be found meritorious by the jury because if he “guessed” incorrectly, he would lose on both counts.
In Hirsch, plaintiff’s complaint alleged one count for breach of an express contract and one for quantum meruit. The appel-lee testified there was a definite contract, and appellee’s attorney made the remark: “Yes, sir; we say there was” — meaning a definite contract. Appellant argued the trial court erred by not requiring appellee to elect upon which paragraph of the complaint he would depend for recovery at the close of the evidence. The Hirsch court said:
Whether there was a definite contract was purely a question of fact for the jury. It was entirely within the province of the jury to determine, from all the evidence, whether a right to recover had been established upon either paragraph. If there was no evidence to warrant a recovery upon the second paragraph, the jury could so find; but appellee was entitled to have the evidence submitted for consideration. There was no error in submitting the evidence, with proper instructions, to the jury.
Hirsch, 85 N.E. at 720. In this case, however, the trial court never required Trustee to make such an election. Thus, Hirsch is inapposite under the precise state of the record here presented. However, we dis*87cern Trustee s argument actually to be he was legally entitled to have both his express contract and quasi-contract theories submitted to a properly instructed jury so it could determine under which one Trustee should recover: the trial court’s failure to do so constitutes reversible error requiring a new trial. We disagree.
The central question here is whether the trial court’s error in failing to submit Trustee’s quasi-contract claim to the jury constitutes reversible error warranting a new trial on that issue as to RC and Farber (as noted in our original opinion, Nehi’s filing of a bankruptcy petition constituted an election of remedies and its appeal has been dismissed with prejudice), or whether such error is merely harmless. Having again reviewed the matter as to this question, we again determine the trial court’s error in this regard .was harmless and affirm the judgment below.
Our rules of trial and appellate procedure are quite specific as to when and for what reasons trial court error shall be deemed harmless or reversible on appeal. Indiana Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 61 reads, in pertinent part
No error in either the admission or the exclusion of evidence and no error or defect in any ruling or order in anything done or omitted by the court ... is ground for ... setting aside a verdict or for vacating, modifying or otherwise disturbing a judgment ... or for reversal on appeal, unless refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice. The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties. (Emphasis supplied).
and Appellate Rule 15(E) provides
... nor shall any judgment be stayed or reversed, in whole or in part, where it shall appear to the court that the merits of the cause have been fairly tried and determined in the court below. (Emphasis supplied).
Thus, the central question is whether the trial court’s error (a) affected the substantial rights of the complaining party, and (b) in spite of the error, were the merits of the cause fairly tried and determined below. Under both criteria, we believe the trial court’s error must be adjudged harmless on appeal.
A. As to Farber.
Simply stated, Trustee had his day in court as to Farber and was totally successful. Count I, Trustee’s express contract claim, was submitted, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Trustee, and the trial court entered judgment against Farber “in the principal sum of $86,625.00 with prejudgment interest thereon in the sum of $28,677.50 for a total of $110,302.50 plus the costs of this action[.]” (R. 4:828). Thus, Trustee currently is entitled to recover all the money to which he is entitled under these facts because Count II, the quasi-contract theory, sought to recover for the identical goods and services rendered by Newman. Thus, even if the cause were returned for trial on the quasi-contract theory and judgment thereon was also recovered against Farber in favor of Trustee, “our Rules do not permit more than one satisfaction for a single wrong,” as Trustee admits in his Petition for Rehearing. Since the judgment rendered on Count I includes all the relief to which Trustee is entitled from Farber, collection of that judgment would preclude collection of any judgment rendered in favor of Trustee in a jury trial on Count II. The first judgment when paid would constitute a setoff against the second, when and if rendered. Buffalo v. Buffalo (1982), Ind.App., 441 N.E.2d 711, 714; 17 Ind. Law Encyclopedia, Judgment, Sec. 520, West Publ. Co. (1959 — 1st reprint, 1974). Thus, remand for trial on Count II would be a useless exercise. The error is harmless as to Farber.
B. As to Royal Crown Cola Company.
Finally, the question central to both Trustee’s express and quasi-contract theories, i.e., whether RC was liable to pay for the goods and services rendered by Newman, was fully and fairly tried and determined by the jury in favor of RC under Count I of Trustee’s sixth amended complaint. It determined no relationship existed between RC and Newman which rendered RC liable for payment of the goods and services rendered Nehi and Farber by Newman.
Because that issue was fairly tried and determined in the court below, it is now at rest. Without the existence of such a relationship, RC can have no legal obligation to pay for those goods and services, even under Trustee’s quasi-contract theory. Thus also as to RC, the trial court’s error was harmless.
Trustee’s Petition for Rehearing is also denied.
CHEZEM, J., and HOFFMAN, J., concur.