Gardner & Others v. Herz & Another was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved two parties, Gardner and Herz, who had entered into a contract for the sale of a piece of real estate. Gardner had agreed to pay Herz a certain amount of money for the property, but Herz had failed to deliver the deed to the property. Gardner then sued Herz for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Gardner and Herz was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the other's promise. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, as Herz had promised to deliver the deed to the property and Gardner had promised to pay the agreed-upon amount of money. The Court also held that Herz was liable for breach of contract, as he had failed to deliver the deed to the property as promised. The Court ordered Herz to pay Gardner the amount of money that had been agreed upon in the contract. This case established that contracts must be supported by consideration and that parties must fulfill their obligations under the contract in order for it to be valid and enforceable.

In Gardner & Others v. Herz & Another, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced in court when it had been made without consideration. The majority opinion held that the contract was not enforceable because there was no consideration given by either party to make it valid. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that although there may have been no consideration exchanged at the time of making the agreement, subsequent acts of performance on behalf of one or both parties should be sufficient to validate an otherwise unenforceable contract. He reasoned that if such contracts were declared invalid due to lack of initial consideration then many agreements would remain unenforced despite being acted upon in good faith by all involved parties. As such, he concluded that courts should recognize these types of contracts as binding so long as they are performed according to their terms and conditions regardless of any prior lack thereof for considerations