In the case of Sally Ladiga v. Ricard de Marcus Roland and Peter Hiefner, Ladiga was suing for damages due to a breach of contract. She had entered into an agreement with Roland and Hiefner in which they agreed to pay her $500 if she would marry one of them. After she married Roland, he refused to pay her the money as promised. The Supreme Court ruled that since there was no consideration on either side, the contract was voidable at will by either party; therefore, Ladiga could not recover any damages from the defendants. This ruling established that contracts without mutual consideration are unenforceable under common law principles because they lack sufficient legal basis for enforcement or recovery of damages in court proceedings.

In the case of Sally Ladiga v. Ricard de Marcus Roland and Peter Hiefner, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should not be voided due to an alleged lack of consideration. The majority had ruled in favor of voiding the contract on this basis, but Justice McLean disagreed with their decision. He argued that if one party was willing to enter into a contract for mutual benefit then it should not be invalidated simply because there was no actual exchange or payment involved. Furthermore, he noted that contracts are often made without any tangible form of consideration being exchanged and yet they remain valid under law; thus, he concluded that this particular agreement should also stand as legally binding despite its lack of monetary value or other forms of compensation from either side.