to a core business. See id. This Court cannot hold, therefore, that appellee’s e-mails contained subject lines that had the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving the recipient. In addition, from these facts, we cannot draw a reasonable inference that a consumer would likely be deceived or misled by the e-mails. We hold that appellant’s pleading is legally insufficient to support a valid cause of action, because the statements were conclusory without any factual allegations to support them. We further hold that the exhibit attached to the complaint, which merely listed e-mails sent by Network Solutions, is, without more, insufficient to support an allegation that the subject lines were misleading or had a tendency to deceive. See Cont’l Masonry, 279 Md. at 481-82, 369 A.2d 566 (<HOLDING>). We, therefore, affirm the circuit court’s
holding a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty will not lie where the claim of breach is dependent upon the existence of a contractual relationship between the parties holding plaintiffs pleading was insufficient to state a valid cause of action because plaintiffs characterization of defendantjs conduct was nothing more than a conclusory expression of opinion without factual allegations to support it and mere conclusions and general averments of a breach of a contractual duty do not suffice in complex matters such as where the breach  is not readily apparent holding that conclusory allegation of conspiracy without supporting factual averments insufficient to state claim holding that conclusory allegations without supporting factual averments are insufficient to state a claim on which relief can be based citations omitted holding that a cause of action for breach of contract accrues at the time of the breach