Frederic D. Conrad, plaintiff in error, brought a case against David Griffey to the Supreme Court of the United States. The dispute was over an agreement between them for the sale of land located in Ohio and Indiana. According to their contract, Conrad had agreed to pay $2,000 for two tracts of land that were owned by Griffey; however he only paid $1,500 before defaulting on his payments due to financial hardship. As such Griffey sought legal action against him and obtained a judgment from an Ohio court ordering him to pay back all remaining amounts owed plus interest as well as costs associated with bringing suit against him. In response Conrad argued that this judgement should be reversed because it violated public policy since it would prevent individuals who are unable to make full payment at once from ever being able purchase property or enter into contracts without fear of litigation if they fail financially during any part of their obligation under said contract or deed. Ultimately the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Griffin finding that although there may have been some inequity involved in enforcing such judgments upon those who cannot meet their obligations due solely too poverty-related issues; nevertheless these types agreements must still be enforced according to law so long as they do not violate other laws or public policies which protect citizens’ rights more generally speaking

In the case of Frederic D. Conrad v. David Griffey, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made without consideration or mutuality of obligation. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable and thus denied relief to the plaintiff in error, Mr. Conrad. However, Justice Grier dissented from this decision and argued that there should have been some form of remedy for Mr. Conrad’s breach of contract claim against Mr. Griffey because he had acted in good faith when entering into their agreement and relied upon its terms as binding on both parties even though no consideration was given by either party at the time they entered into it nor any mutuality of obligations established afterwards by them or imposed by law upon them with respect thereto . He further noted that while courts may refuse to enforce agreements which are “unconscionable” due to lack of consideration or mutuality, this particular agreement did not meet those criteria since neither party sought an unfair advantage over one another through its terms; rather they simply agreed on certain matters which would benefit both sides equally if fulfilled according to their understanding at the time it was made . Therefore, Justice Grier concluded that justice demanded a remedy for Mr. Conrad's breach-of-contract claim against Mr