In the case of James W. Breedlove and William L. Robeson v Theodore Nicolet and J.J Sigg, the plaintiffs argued that they had been wrongfully evicted from a property in which they held a leasehold interest due to an alleged breach of contract by their landlord, Mr Nicolet. The Supreme Court found in favor of the defendants on two grounds: firstly, that there was no evidence presented to prove any breach of contract; secondly, that even if such a breach did exist it would not have entitled them to terminate the lease as it was for an indefinite period with no fixed term or expiration date specified within its terms. Ultimately, this decision established important legal precedent regarding leases without fixed terms and how landlords must proceed when attempting to evict tenants under such circumstances.

In the case of James W. Breedlove and William L. Robeson v Theodore Nicolet and J.J Sigg, the dissenting opinion was that a contract between two parties should be honored even if it is not in writing or signed by both parties as long as there is evidence to show that an agreement had been made between them. The dissent argued that verbal contracts are just as binding under law since they can still be proven through testimony from witnesses who were present when the agreement was made, or other circumstantial evidence such as payments being made for goods received or services rendered according to what had been agreed upon verbally by both parties involved in the transaction. Therefore, any breach of this verbal contract should be treated with equal severity regardless of whether it was written down on paper or not, since either way it would have constituted a legally binding agreement between two individuals which must then be upheld by law accordingly.