the merchant concern of an inadequate seller’s remedy in special order transactions by its introduction of § 14-1107, which allows a seller the right to exercise “all rights and remedies available” under the U.C.C., including, as here, the right to recover the difference between the resale price and the contract price of the goods, together with incidental damages. See, e.g., § 2-706. This distinct and heightened remedy effectively eliminated the need to exclude special order transactions under the scope of the Act, while extending the obligations and remedies provided under the Act under such circumstances. Moreover, our construction is commensurate with the statutory scheme under the CPA, Md.Code (1975, 1990 Repl.Vol., 1998 Supp.), Commercial Law Art., §§ 13-101 et. seq. See § 13-102 (<HOLDING>). See also CitaraManis v. Hallowell, 328 Md.
holding that when state educational benefits exceed minimum federal standards the state standards are enforceable through the idea holding evidence of uncharged prior cocaine sales with numerous similarities to those for which the defendant was on trial admissible for among other purposes showing the existence of a common plan involving the prior sales and the transactions which were the subject of the charges pending against the defendant recognizing the mounting concern over the increase of deceptive practices in connection with sales of merchandise see  13102a the general assembly declared its intention to set certain minimum statewide standards for the protection of consumers across the state see  13  102b holding that exercising general jurisdiction over defendant was improper where its actual sales in florida were a small percentage of the total sales and therefore these sales were de minimis  holding that sales made to contractor who builds roads for the state are not sales to the state and therefore are not exempt