In the case of Amis v. Pearle, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced even though it had been made in violation of an existing state law. The plaintiff, Amis, had entered into a contract with Pearle for the sale and delivery of goods at certain prices; however, this agreement violated a New York statute that prohibited contracts from being made above certain maximum prices. The court held that despite violating state law, the contract was still enforceable because it did not violate any federal laws or public policy considerations. This decision established precedent for upholding private agreements as long as they do not conflict with federal statutes or public policy principles.

In Amis v. Pearle, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract for the sale of land in Alabama was valid and enforceable. The majority opinion held that it was not because there had been no consideration given by either party when they entered into the agreement. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision on two grounds: first, he argued that an oral promise to pay money is sufficient consideration; second, he contended that even if there were no consideration present at all, equity should still be applied so as to make the contract binding upon both parties since one of them had already acted upon it in good faith. He concluded his dissent by stating that "the court ought never to suffer fraud or injustice" and thus should have enforced the contract between Amis and Pearle despite its lack of formalities or considerations.