In Gregg v. Forsyth, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case involving an alleged breach of contract between two parties. The plaintiff, William Gregg, had entered into a contract with defendant John Forsyth to purchase certain property in Georgia for $2,000. After paying part of the purchase price and taking possession of the land, Gregg discovered that it was not as described in their agreement and he refused to pay any more money for it. He then sued Forsyth for damages due to his breach of contract. The court found that there was indeed a valid contract between both parties but determined that since no specific performance could be ordered by law due to its nature (i.e., real estate), all they could do is award monetary damages based on what would have been paid if there had been full compliance with the terms agreed upon by both sides at time when they made their bargain - which amounted to only $1,500 instead of $2,000 originally sought by Gregg from Forsyth as compensation for his loss caused by non-performance or partial performance under said agreement .

In Gregg v. Forsyth, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties that had been partially performed could be enforced by one of the parties against the other. The majority opinion held that it could not, as there was no consideration for such an enforcement action and thus it violated public policy. However, Justice Grier dissented from this decision on several grounds. He argued that contracts should be enforced according to their terms unless they are illegal or immoral in nature; since neither of those conditions applied here, he believed that enforcing the contract would have been appropriate and necessary to uphold justice between both parties involved in this dispute. Furthermore, he noted that if courts were allowed to refuse enforcement based solely on lack of consideration then many valid contracts would go unenforced due to technicalities rather than any real wrongdoing by either party involved in them. Ultimately his dissent concluded with him arguing for a more lenient approach towards enforcing existing contracts so as not to undermine legitimate business dealings and agreements made between individuals or companies alike