In the case of Barrel v. Transportation Company, a dispute arose between two parties over an agreement to transport barrels from one location to another. The transportation company had agreed to move the barrels for a certain price and then later refused to do so without providing any explanation or justification. The court found that this refusal constituted a breach of contract on behalf of the transportation company and ordered them to pay damages in accordance with their original agreement. This decision established that when parties enter into an enforceable contract, they must fulfill their obligations under it or face legal consequences if they fail to do so.

In the case of Barrel v. Transportation Company, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable because they lacked consideration and thus did not constitute valid agreements under the law. However, in his dissenting opinion Justice Grier argued that there should be an exception for cases where one party has already performed their part of the agreement before learning that no consideration had been given by either side. He reasoned that if this exception existed then it would prevent injustice from occurring as well as encourage people to fulfill their contractual obligations even when no legal remedy is available due to lack of consideration. Ultimately, Justice Grier's dissent was unsuccessful and the majority opinion prevailed; however, his argument still serves as an important reminder about how exceptions can help protect individuals who have acted in good faith despite being unaware of certain legal requirements or technicalities at play in a particular situation.