In Chirac and Others v. Reinicker, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case involving an appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant by a circuit court in Louisiana. The plaintiffs had brought suit against the defendant for damages resulting from his alleged breach of contract to deliver goods on board their vessel at New Orleans. The Supreme Court held that although there was evidence that some goods were delivered, it could not be established with certainty which items were actually received by whom or when they were received; thus, no actionable claim existed under Louisiana law as it stood at that time. Furthermore, since all parties involved had acted upon this understanding prior to any dispute arising between them, equitable principles precluded recovery for any losses sustained due to non-delivery or late delivery of goods.

In Chirac and Others v. Reinicker, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made in violation of an existing law. The majority opinion held that the contract should not be enforced because it violated public policy by circumventing existing laws. However, Justice Story dissented from this decision on the grounds that enforcing contracts is essential for maintaining trust and confidence in commercial transactions, which are necessary for economic growth and prosperity. He argued that if courts refused to enforce contracts simply because they were made in violation of some other law then no one would ever enter into any kind of agreement with another party since there was always a chance their contract might later be deemed invalid due to some technicality or legal loophole. Therefore, he concluded that while such violations should certainly not go unpunished, refusing to enforce validly formed agreements would do more harm than good by undermining faith in contractual obligations altogether.