In Brown v. Van Braam, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable even though it had not been signed by both parties. The case involved an agreement between William Brown and John Van Braam in which Brown agreed to pay Van Braam for certain goods he had purchased from him. Although there was no written document or signature on behalf of either party, the court found that their verbal agreement constituted a binding contract under common law principles. In its decision, the court noted that contracts can be formed without writing if they are made with mutual assent and consideration is exchanged between both parties; thus, this oral agreement could still be enforced despite being unsigned by either party. This ruling established important precedent regarding how contracts may be formed in American courts going forward.

In Brown v. Van Braam, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties that had been made in Holland should be enforced in America. The majority opinion held that it should not, as the contract violated American public policy and could not be enforced under American law. However, Justice Paterson dissented from this decision and argued that contracts made abroad are valid if they do not violate any laws of the state where enforcement is sought. He further stated that since there were no laws prohibiting such contracts in either Pennsylvania or Virginia (the states involved), then it would have been appropriate for them to enforce this agreement according to its terms. Additionally, he noted that enforcing foreign agreements encourages international commerce which benefits both countries involved and thus serves an important public purpose.