In Hall Neilson v. Wilson Lagow, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to determine whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it lacked consideration and had been made in violation of an existing state law. The plaintiff argued that he should not have to pay for goods received from the defendant because there was no consideration given by either party and that their agreement violated a state statute prohibiting such contracts. The court held that although there may have been some technical violations of state law, they did not invalidate the contract as long as both parties were aware of them at the time they entered into it. Furthermore, since neither party provided any form of legal consideration for their agreement, this rendered it unenforceable under common law principles. Ultimately, however, due to equitable considerations surrounding this case – including evidence showing good faith on behalf of both parties –the court ruled in favor of enforcing the contract despite its lack or absence or legal consideration

In Hall Neilson v. Wilson Lagow, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a contract between two parties that included an agreement for future payments should be enforced by the court. The majority opinion held that such contracts were enforceable and could not be voided simply because of their uncertain nature. However, in his dissenting opinion Justice McLean argued that these types of contracts are too speculative and uncertain to be enforced by the courts as they lack any definite terms or conditions which can provide certainty regarding performance or payment obligations. He further argued that if such agreements were allowed to stand it would lead to great injustice as one party may have already performed their part while another has failed without consequence due to uncertainty surrounding enforcement of such agreements.