the trial judge in closing that, because the figures did not factor out expenses, they were unreliable. Appellant has not cited, and we have not located, any Maryland case directly on point, but the necessary remedy is a remand for a calculation of appellee’s expenses, to arrive at a proper damages award. See Guzman v. Jan-Pro Cleaning Sys., Inc., 839 A.2d 504, 508-09 (R.I.2003). JUDGMENTS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART; CASE REMANDED TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. COSTS TO BE PAID TWO-THIRDS BY APPELLANT AND ONE-THIRD BY APPELLEE. 1 . Appellant does not challenge the propriety of awarding both damages and rescission. See Sonnenberg v. Sec. Mgmt. Corp., 325 Md. 117, 124-25, 599 A.2d 820 (1992) (<HOLDING>). 2 . In his decision, announced from the bench
holding that remedies provided in the bankruptcy code for enforcing a chapter 11 plan of reorganization are not exclusive holding that the remedies are exclusive holding plaintiffs were not foreclosed from pursuing ucc remedies outside of written warranty because warranty notice provision did not specify that the remedies provided were exclusive of any other remedy holding that the act provides the exclusive procedures and remedies for common law causes of action based on allegations of deception fraud and misrepresentation holding that if adequate administrative remedies are available it is improper to seek relief in court before those remedies are exhausted