In Robert Barry v. Thomas Foyles, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case involving an alleged breach of contract between two parties. The plaintiff in error, Robert Barry, had entered into a contract with defendant Thomas Foyles to purchase certain goods for $1,000 and pay him within one year from the date of delivery. However, when it came time to make payment on the debt due to Foyles he refused and instead brought suit against him in court. In response to this action by Barry, Foyles argued that there was no consideration given for his promise as required under common law contracts at that time; thus rendering it voidable or unenforceable by either party. After hearing both sides' arguments and considering relevant legal precedent set forth in prior cases such as Mitchel v Reynolds (1824), Chief Justice John Marshall ultimately ruled in favor of Foyle's position stating that since there was no consideration given for his promise then any agreement made between them would be considered invalid according to established laws governing contractual agreements at that time period.

In the case of Robert Barry v. Thomas Foyles, Justice Story delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should have granted relief to the plaintiff on his claim for damages arising from an alleged breach of contract. He reasoned that although there was no written agreement between the parties, it could be inferred from their conduct and dealings with each other that they had entered into an implied contract. Furthermore, even if there were no express or implied promise made by either party, Justice Story believed that equity would require compensation for any losses suffered as a result of one party's unjust enrichment at another's expense. Thus, he concluded that since Foyles had received benefits from Barry without providing anything in return - namely labor and materials - then justice demanded some form of recompense to make up for this inequity.