In Gilmer v. Stone, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was an agreement between a husband and wife, wherein the husband agreed to pay the wife a certain sum of money in exchange for her relinquishing her right to alimony. The wife argued that the contract was invalid because it was not in writing, and thus not enforceable under the Statute of Frauds. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the Statute of Frauds did not apply to the contract in question because it was not a contract for the sale of land, and thus did not fall within the scope of the Statute. Furthermore, the Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable because it was supported by consideration, and the parties had acted in good faith. Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that the contract between the husband and wife was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the Statute of Frauds did not apply to the contract, and that the contract was supported by consideration and had been entered into in good faith.

Justice Harlan delivered the dissenting opinion in Gilmer v. Stone, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between an employer and employee could not be enforced if it violated public policy or constituted fraud on either party. In this case, he believed there was evidence of fraud by both parties: The employer had promised to pay wages for services rendered but then refused to do so; while the employee had misrepresented his age when entering into the agreement with his employer. Furthermore, Justice Harlan noted that even if no fraud existed, enforcing such contracts would still violate public policy as they are often entered into under duress or coercion from employers who have superior bargaining power over their employees. Thus, Justice Harlan concluded that these types of contracts should not be enforceable in court and urged reversal of the majority's decision on this matter.