In the case of Richard Gregg and Charles Ballance v. Robert Forsyth, the plaintiffs in error argued that a contract between them and Forsyth was invalid due to an alleged lack of consideration. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument, ruling that there had been sufficient consideration for the contract as it was based on mutual promises made by both parties. Furthermore, they held that even if one party did not fulfill their promise or obligation under the agreement, it would still be valid so long as there had been some form of benefit received from either side at some point during its duration. This decision established important precedent regarding contracts and considerations which are still applicable today in many legal disputes involving agreements between two or more parties.

In the case of Richard Gregg and Charles Ballance v. Robert Forsyth, the dissenting opinion argued that a slave owner should not be able to recover damages for an escaped slave who had been hired out by another person without his consent. The majority opinion held that since the hiring was done without permission from either party, it did not constitute a valid contract and therefore no damages were due to either party. However, in dissent Justice Grier argued that while there may have been no formal agreement between parties, there was still an implied understanding between them which allowed for recovery of damages if one party failed to fulfill their obligations under this informal arrangement. He further noted that allowing such claims would help protect both owners and hirers from potential losses resulting from runaway slaves or other breaches of contract terms.