In the case of Benjamin H. Lambert and Lewis McKenzie v. William Ghiselin, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it was not in writing as required by law. The plaintiffs argued that they had an oral agreement with defendant William Ghiselin for him to purchase their land at a certain price, but he refused to pay them after taking possession of it. The court found that there was sufficient evidence presented by both sides to show that an oral agreement existed and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering Mr. Ghiselin to pay them what he owed according to their verbal contract. This decision established precedent for enforcing contracts even if they are not written down or signed as long as there is enough proof from both parties involved showing that one did exist between them

In the case of Benjamin H. Lambert and Lewis McKenzie v. William Ghiselin, the dissenting opinion was that the court should not have granted a new trial in this case because there was no error on behalf of either party during the original trial. The dissent argued that it is only when an error has been committed by one or both parties during a trial that a new trial can be warranted; otherwise, it would set precedent for any dissatisfied litigant to request another chance at litigation without cause. Furthermore, they argued that granting such requests could lead to endless appeals and delays in justice being served as well as create confusion among jurors who may become uncertain about their decision-making abilities if they know their verdicts are subject to change after deliberation has ended. As such, they concluded that since no errors had occurred during this particular case's initial proceedings, there was no legal basis for granting a new trial and thus disagreed with the majority ruling which allowed for one to take place anyway.