has resulted from real bargaining between parties who had freedom of choice and understanding and ability to negotiate in a meaningful fashion.” Id. at 544, 279 A.2d 640. The standard of conduct contemplated by the unconscionability clause is “good faith, honesty in fact and observance of fair dealing [,]” and the need for application of that standard “is most acute when the professional seller is seeking the trade of those most subject to exploitation—the uneducated, the inexperienced and the people of low incomes.” Ibid. Whether a particular practice is unconscionable must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Id. at 543, 279 A.2d 640. [Troup, supra, 343 N.J.Super. at 278, 778 A.2d 529.] See also Jefferson Loan Co. v. Session, 397 N.J.Super. 520, 938 A.2d 169 (App.Div.2008) (<HOLDING>). We acknowledge that the transactions at issue
holding that the rules of contract law are applicable to plea agreements holding cfa applicable to the postrepossession conduct of assignee of retail installment auto sales contract holding opinion testimony of sales should have been excluded because opinion not based on comparable sales holding that the fact that defendants sales in forum were less than 5 percent of its total sales volume was irrelevant so long as its sales were part of a regular course of dealing and were not isolated or exceptional events 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 