any of the State’s bonding practices are invalidated under the Debt Limitation Clause. Y The judgment of the Appellate Division upholding EFCFA is affirmed. Plaintiffs’ general challenge to contract debt is set down for reargument. 1 The term “contract bond” (or "contract debt”) describes bonds issued by an independent state authority on a contract between the State Treasurer and the authority stating that payment on the bonds by the State is subject to legislative appropriations. In contrast, general obligation bonds are enforceable state debts backed by the full faith and credit of the State. John Downs & Jordon Elliott Goodman, Barron’s Dictionary of Finance and Investment Terms 171 (1991). 2 The Building Authority Act was sustained in Enourato, supra, 90 N.J. at 410, 448 A.2d 449 (<HOLDING>). 3 Each of the independent entities named has
holding that the state would presumably be responsible for any debts incurred because the park authority submits its budget to the georgia legislature holding that a public corporation in that case a commission created to provide information about the tva is an entity separate from the state and its acts are not acts of the state  within the meaning of the state constitutions prohibition against the state creating new debts holding that the insurer is not bound by acts of the agent which are beyond the scope of his authority when the insured has notice of the limitations upon an agents authority or when the circumstances are sufficient to suggest that an inquiry should be made as to such limitations holding that the confrontation clause does not apply to the sentencing hearing holding that since the building authority act does not authorize the creation of any debts by the state the debt limitations clause  does not apply to the authoritys debts or any obligations of the state on its lease agreements with the authority