In Erskine v. Van Arsdale, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid. The contract in question was an agreement between Erskine and Van Arsdale, in which Erskine agreed to pay Van Arsdale a certain sum of money in exchange for a certain piece of land. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was made in good faith and that both parties had the capacity to enter into the contract. Furthermore, the Court found that the contract was not against public policy and that it was not unconscionable. The Court also held that the contract was not voidable due to any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of either party. The Court noted that the contract was made in good faith and that both parties had the capacity to enter into the contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Erskine and Van Arsdale was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was made in good faith and that both parties had the capacity to enter into the contract. Furthermore, the Court found that the contract was not against public policy and that it was not unconscionable.

In Erskine v. Van Arsdale, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties that had been partially performed could be enforced by one of them against the other. The majority opinion held that it could not, as there was no consideration for such an agreement and thus it lacked mutuality of obligation. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that partial performance should be sufficient consideration to support a contract in certain circumstances. He argued that when one party has already substantially fulfilled their obligations under the agreement and is then prevented from receiving what they are due because of some technical deficiency in its formation or execution, justice demands that they receive something for their efforts rather than nothing at all. Therefore he concluded that partial performance should constitute valid consideration where both parties have received substantial benefit from it and would otherwise suffer prejudice if denied relief on account of some minor defect in formality or lack thereof