In the case of Jacob B. Brown, Jacob Nisswaner, Fontaine Beckham, John C. Unseld and George W. Moler (plaintiffs in error) v Benjamin Huger (defendant), the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed given by an agent on behalf of his principal was valid when it had not been signed by both parties as required under Virginia law at that time. The plaintiffs argued that since they had acted in good faith and relied upon the representations made by their agent, they should be allowed to enforce the contract despite its lack of signatures from both parties involved in making it. However, after considering all evidence presented before them including testimony from witnesses who were present during negotiations for this transaction as well as other relevant documents related to this matter; the court ultimately ruled against them stating that even though there may have been some degree of reliance placed upon their agents’ statements regarding validity of such contracts without being signed by both sides; nevertheless due to legal requirements set forth under Virginia law at that time which clearly stated any agreement between two or more persons must be written down and signed off on with consent from all concerned individuals – thus rendering any verbal agreements invalid -the plaintiffs could not successfully argue for enforcement of said contract based solely on trustworthiness alone .

In the case of Jacob B. Brown, et al v Benjamin Huger, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should not be voided because one party was unable to fulfill their end of it due to circumstances beyond their control. The plaintiffs in error had entered into an agreement with Huger for the sale and delivery of tobacco at a certain price but were unable to deliver on time due to unforeseen events such as bad weather and other delays caused by third-party carriers. The majority opinion held that since they failed to meet the terms of the contract, it could be voided; however, Justice Daniel dissented from this ruling arguing that these unforeseeable events should have been taken into consideration when determining whether or not there was a breach in contract. He believed that if either party had acted fraudulently or maliciously then perhaps voiding would have been justified but since neither did so he felt strongly against invalidating what otherwise would have been considered valid contractual obligations under normal circumstances.