In the case of William Fenn v. Peter H. Holme, Fenn was suing for damages due to a breach of contract between himself and Holme. The dispute arose when Holme refused to pay for goods that had been delivered by Fenn as agreed upon in their contract. The Supreme Court found in favor of Holme on the grounds that he had not received any benefit from the goods since they were intended for another party who never paid him either, thus making it impossible for him to fulfill his obligation under the agreement with Fenn. Ultimately, this decision established an important legal precedent which states that if one party is unable to receive payment or benefit from a transaction then they are not liable under any contractual obligations associated with it.

In the case of William Fenn v. Peter H. Holme, Justice Grier dissented from the majority opinion that held that a contract between two parties was not enforceable due to lack of consideration and mutuality of obligation. In his dissent, Justice Grier argued that there was sufficient evidence to show that both parties had agreed upon certain terms and conditions in their contract which should have been enforced by the court as it is an established principle of law "that when one party has performed his part according to agreement, he shall be entitled to demand performance on the other side". Furthermore, Justice Grier noted how this decision could lead to potential injustice if contracts are not enforced based solely on technicalities such as lack of consideration or mutuality without taking into account any extenuating circumstances surrounding each individual case. Ultimately, while agreeing with some aspects of the majority opinion regarding considerations for future cases involving similar issues; Justice Grier concluded by expressing disagreement with its application in this particular instance given all available facts presented before them at trial.