In the case of Edward P. Fourniquet and wife, and Martin W. Ewing and wife v John Perkins, the appellants sought to recover damages from Perkins for a breach of contract in which he had agreed to convey certain lands to them but failed to do so. The Supreme Court held that although there was evidence that Perkins had made an agreement with the appellants, it was not sufficient enough for them to be able to prove their claim against him as they were unable demonstrate any consideration or value given by either party in exchange for his promise. As such, no action could be taken against him on this basis alone; however, if further proof could be provided then a suit may have been possible under different circumstances.

In the case of Edward P. Fourniquet and wife, and Martin W. Ewing and wife v John Perkins, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written regardless of any subsequent changes in circumstances or conditions. The majority opinion had held that since one party to the contract was no longer able to fulfill their obligations due to changed circumstances beyond their control, they were not liable for breach of contract. However, Justice McLean dissented from this ruling on the grounds that it would lead to an unjust result where contracts could be broken without consequence simply because unforeseen events occurred after signing them. He believed instead that courts should enforce contracts according to their plain language even if performance became more difficult than originally anticipated by either party at the time of entering into it; otherwise there would be no incentive for people or businesses engaging in contractual agreements with each other as they could never trust those promises being kept over time.