Did the Superior Court and the Appellate Division of New Jersey violate the Defendant's constitutional rights by disregarding established precedent (consideration-in-contract-law) mandated by the New Jersey Supreme Court (Friedman-v-Tappan-Dev-Corp) and, in doing so, undermine the uniform-application-of-contract-law-across-jurisdictions?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Did the Superior Court and the Appellate Division of New Jersey violate the Defendant’s constitutional rights by disregarding established precedent (consideration in contract law) mandated by the New Jersey Supreme Court (Friedman v. Tappan Dev. Corp., 22 N.J. 523, 531) and, in doing so, undermine the uniform application of contract law across jurisdictions? “Ordinary Principles of a Contract” The U.S. Supreme Court upholds standards principles of a contract which include mutual assent, consideration, legality of purpose, and contractual capacity. These principles form the foundation of contract enforcement in the United States. “Ordinary Principles of a Contract” M&G USA, v. Tackett, 135 S.Ct. 926 (2015). The Defendant contends that both the Superior Court and the Appellate Division failed to adhere to mandated law on consideration in a contract, as outlined by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Friedman v. Tappan Dev. Corp., The Plaintiff failed to demonstrate any value given to the Defendant, a requirement for a valid contract. The Questions Presented Are: 1. Was the Complaint filed in bad faith? 2. The Lower Court, specifically Judge Brennan, did not apply mandated law on consideration in a contract, relying on personal assumptions. The Appellate Court rubber-stamped the lower court’s decision without addressing the Defendant’s main defense, violating the obligation for a de novo review. The Defendant argues that the evidence presented is manifestly supported by clear and convincing evidence, citing Balducci v. Cige, 240 N.J. 574, 595 (2020). ii 3. The Appellate Court failed to address the central defense of the mandated by the New Jersey Supreme Court. This oversight led to the court affirming the lower court’s decision without a thorough examination. 4. New Jersey Contract law mandates de novo review (Kieffer v. Best Buy, 205 N.J. 213, 222-23). The Appellate Court neglected this obligation despite specific evidence submitted by the Defendant, which raises questions about the thoroughness of the examination.