In Thomas J. Green v William Custard, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case involving an alleged breach of contract between two parties. The plaintiff in error, Thomas J. Green, had entered into a contract with defendant William Custard to purchase certain goods for $1,000 and pay him back over time at 6% interest per annum until fully paid off. After making several payments on the debt as agreed upon by both parties, Green stopped paying due to his belief that he was no longer obligated under their agreement because it had been partially performed already and thus extinguished according to common law principles of contracts at that time. However, Custard argued that since there were still unpaid installments remaining on the debt when Green ceased payment then he was still liable under their original agreement and sought legal action against him for non-payment of those outstanding sums owed plus damages resulting from such defaulted payments. Ultimately after considering all evidence presented before them in this matter including testimony from witnesses regarding what exactly transpired between these two individuals leading up to this dispute; the court ruled in favor of Custard finding that even though part performance may have occurred prior to any alleged breach or termination by either party it did not extinguish their contractual obligations but rather only served as proof thereof which could be used if necessary during litigation proceedings should one arise out of such circumstances like here where we find ourselves today with this particular case being decided upon by our highest judicial body within our nation's government system - The United States Supreme

In Thomas J. Green v. William Custard, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration and in violation of an existing statute. The majority opinion held that the contract was unenforceable due to its lack of consideration and statutory infraction; however, Justice Grier dissented from this ruling on the grounds that there were sufficient facts present to support enforcement of the agreement as valid under common law principles. He argued that although no legal or moral obligation existed for either party to fulfill their contractual duties, they both voluntarily agreed upon them out of mutual respect and understanding - thus making it enforceable despite its lack of consideration or statutory compliance. Furthermore, he noted that if such contracts were not recognized by courts then individuals would have little incentive to honor agreements made in good faith even though they may not be legally binding according to state statutes or regulations.