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?

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).

3. The Appellate Court failed to address the central defense of the Defendant—consideration, 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.

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?