In Gilbert L. Thompson v. William Selden, John Withers, Robert W. Latham and Lawrence P. Bayne (doing business under the firm of Selden, Withers & Company), the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made with an individual who did not have authority to bind his partners in a partnership agreement. The plaintiff argued that he had entered into an oral agreement with one of the defendants for goods and services but that defendant lacked authority from his partners to enter into such an agreement on their behalf; thus rendering it unenforceable against them as well as himself individually. The Supreme Court held that since there was no evidence presented showing any fraud or misrepresentation by either party regarding this issue, then the contract should be enforced according to its terms even though only one partner had agreed upon them without authorization from his other partners in the company at hand

In the dissenting opinion of Gilbert L. Thompson v. William Selden, John Withers, Robert W. Latham and Lawrence P. Bayne doing business under the firm of Selden, Withers & Company, Justice Nelson argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise or if it violates public policy or morals. He believed that in this case there was no such evidence and therefore the contract should have been enforced according to its terms without any modification by the court. Furthermore he argued that even if one party had made a mistake when entering into an agreement with another party they were still bound by it since mistakes do not invalidate contracts absent fraud or misrepresentation on behalf of either party involved in making said agreement; thus he concluded that plaintiff's claim for damages due to alleged breach of contract should have been dismissed as per defendant's motion for summary judgment which was denied by lower courts but granted at Supreme Court level only because majority found parol evidence rule applicable here despite lack thereof being mentioned anywhere in original document itself nor having any bearing on outcome whatsoever given facts presented before them during trial proceedings leading up to appeal decision rendered herein today .