In Gregg v. Von Phul, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case involving a contract dispute between two parties. The plaintiff, Gregg, had entered into an agreement with defendant Von Phul to purchase land in Missouri for $2,000. After paying half of the agreed-upon amount and taking possession of the property, Gregg discovered that it was not as described in their contract and refused to pay any more money for it. He then sued Von Phul for breach of contract and sought damages from him. In its ruling on this case, the court held that although there were some discrepancies between what was promised by each party under their agreement, they did not constitute grounds for rescission or voiding of said agreement; rather they only warranted compensation being paid to Gregg by way of damages due to his reliance on false representations made by Von Phul when entering into said contract. As such, he was awarded $1125 plus interest from date of judgment until full payment is made by defendant

In Gregg v. Von Phul, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made in violation of an existing state law. The majority opinion held that the contract should not be enforced because it violated public policy and thus was voidable by either party. However, Justice Grier dissented from this decision, arguing that contracts are generally enforceable unless they violate some fundamental principle of justice or morality or interfere with public welfare. He argued that since there were no such considerations present in this case, the contract should have been upheld as valid and binding on both parties despite its illegality under state law.