Austin L. Adams and C. Harding were plaintiffs in error who brought a case against Julia Roberts to the Supreme Court of the United States. The dispute centered around a contract between Adams, Harding, and Roberts that was made in 1841 for the sale of land located in Indiana Territory (now Wisconsin). According to this agreement, Adams and Harding agreed to pay $500 for two parcels of land owned by Roberts; however, they failed to make payment as promised within one year from when it was due according to their contract. As such, Robert’s filed suit against them seeking damages for breach of contract which resulted in her being awarded $1000 plus interest at 6%. On appeal before the US Supreme Court justices ruled that there had been no fraud or mistake on behalf of either party involved with regards to entering into this agreement thus upholding lower court's decision awarding damages owed by Adams and Harding.

In Austin L. Adams and C. Harding v Julia Roberts, the dissenting opinion argued that the court should have found in favor of the plaintiffs because they had a valid contract with Roberts to purchase her land for $1,000. The majority opinion held that there was no consideration given by either party and thus no enforceable agreement between them; however, this overlooks evidence presented at trial which showed that both parties intended to enter into an agreement whereby Adams and Harding would pay Roberts $1,000 for her property. Furthermore, it ignores precedent set by other courts which has established that when two parties intend to make a contract but do not specify all its terms or conditions then those terms can be implied from their conduct during negotiations leading up to the formation of said contract. Therefore, since there is clear evidence showing intent on behalf of both parties as well as consideration provided by Adams and Harding in exchange for Robert's land - even if only implicitly -the dissent believes justice demands finding in favor of the plaintiffs here.