Court Opinion

ID: 9728699
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:14:32.980578+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:51.027242
License: Public Domain

CLIFFOED, J.,
dissenting.
On the only issue raised in the petition for certification and addressed at oral argument, the plurality opinion declares that the Appellate Division erred in “holding that the subject securities constitute a contract of adhesion.” Ante at 348, 605 A.2d at 683. The opinion then muddies the waters by acknowledging, as surely it must, that “[t]he project notes involved here unquestionably fit our definition of contracts of adhesion,” ante at 354, 605 A.2d at 686, a concession repeated ante at 360, 605 A.2d at 689. And so the plurality creates a little paradox, the jurisprudential equivalent of saying that even though something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a donkey.
Aside from the distracting confusion generated by the plurality’s foregoing flip-flop, I agree with so much of the opinion as holds that the notice provision is not unfair to the holders of the notes. Notice of redemption effected by publication was within the reasonable expectations of the noteholders, because the notice provision was legibly printed in the offering statement and investors are charged by N.J.S.A. 12A:8-202(1) with notice of terms set forth in the offering statement. The notice *383provision was not unconscionable or against public policy or unduly oppressive.
Beyond all of that, I join in Judge Gaulkin’s dissent from Part IV of the plurality opinion.
To recapitulate: I agree with Judge Petrella that the project notes are contracts of adhesion. I agree with the plurality that the notice provision is not unfair. And I agree with Judge Gaulkin’s dissent from Part IV.
I would reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division and reinstate the Law Division’s judgment in favor of defendants.
For reversal; remandment — Chief Justice WILENTZ, Justices HANDLER and O’HERN, and Judge PETRELLA — 4.
For reversal; reinstatement — Justice CLIFFORD, and Judges GAULKIN and KEEFE — 3.
PETRELLA, Judge, concurring in remandment; dissenting in part — 1.