In King v. The Delaware Insurance Company, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration. The plaintiff argued that he had provided services for the defendant and should therefore be compensated for them. However, the defendant argued that there was no consideration given in exchange for those services and thus they were not obligated to pay him anything. After considering both sides of the argument, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff on grounds that an agreement can still be binding even if it is made without any form of consideration being exchanged between parties as long as there is evidence showing an intention by both parties to enter into a legally enforceable contract. This ruling established important precedent regarding contracts entered into without any form of compensation or benefit being exchanged between parties which has since become known as "unilateral contracts".

In King v. The Delaware Insurance Company, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a policy of insurance issued by the defendant company covered losses incurred when goods were stolen from an insured vessel while it was in transit. Chief Justice Marshall delivered the dissenting opinion, arguing that there should be no coverage for such losses because they are not within the scope of what is normally considered as risks under marine insurance policies. He reasoned that these types of losses are too remote and speculative to be included in a contract between two parties without express agreement on both sides. Furthermore, he argued that if this type of loss were allowed to be recovered through an insurance policy then it would open up insurers to potential abuse and fraud since any theft could potentially be claimed as a risk covered by their policies.