THEODORE RUDBART, NATALIE RUDBART, BEVERLY LITOFF AND BENJAMIN WELTMAN, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. NORTH JERSEY DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY COMMISSION AND FIRST FIDELITY BANK, N.A., N.J., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. MADELINE OKIN, FOR HERSELF AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. NORTH JERSEY DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY COMMISSION AND FIRST FIDELITY BANK, N.A., N.J., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, 127 N.J. 344

Summary

In a consolidated class action, plaintiff noteholders filed actions against defendants, water supply commissioner and bank, for damages that arose from the early redemption of their notes. Plaintiff's central claim was that notice by publication, although specifically provided for in the notes, was inadequate and unconscionable. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding that the notice was agreed upon and binding on the parties. The intermediate appellate court reversed and held that the contract at issue was a contract of adhesion, and that the failure by defendants to give mail notice of the early redemption of the notes was unfair. On appeal, the judgment of the intermediate appellate court was reversed, and the court held that the notice-by-publication term in the contract was proper, that the asserted unfairness of the notice provision was not sufficient to justify judicial intrusion, and that notice by publication did not contravene legislative policy.