Charles Ballance brought a case to the Supreme Court against Robert Forsyth, Lucien Dumain, and Anthony R. Bovis. The dispute arose from an agreement between Ballance and Forsyth in which they agreed that if Ballance paid off certain debts of Forsyth’s then he would receive two-thirds of the profits made by a steamboat owned jointly by them. However, when it came time for payment, Dumain and Bovis refused to pay out any money due to their belief that they had purchased all rights belonging to the boat from Forsyth prior to his agreement with Ballance. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dumain and Bovis as there was no evidence presented showing that either party knew about or consented to this arrangement between Ballance and Forsyth at the time it was made; thus making it invalid under Louisiana law.

In the case of Charles Ballance v. Robert Forsyth, Lucien Dumain and Anthony R. Bovis, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written even if it is not beneficial to one party or another. The majority opinion held that contracts could be voided when they were found to be unconscionable or against public policy; however, the dissent argued that this was an improper application of law and would lead to uncertainty in contractual relationships. Furthermore, they argued that courts should only intervene in cases where fraud had been committed by one party against another or where there was evidence of duress on either side during negotiations for a contract's terms and conditions. Ultimately, the dissent concluded that allowing courts to void contracts based on their own discretion would create too much legal ambiguity which could potentially harm both contracting parties involved in any given agreement.