Lawrason v. Mason was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1806. The dispute arose out of a contract between Lawrason and Mason, wherein Lawrason agreed to pay Mason for certain services rendered. When payment was not made, Mason brought suit against Lawrason in the Circuit Court of Maryland. The Circuit Court found that there had been an agreement between the two parties but determined that it could not be enforced due to its lack of consideration or mutuality of obligation; thus, they dismissed the action with costs awarded to defendant (Mason). On appeal from this decision, however, the US Supreme Court reversed and remanded back to circuit court on grounds that although there may have been no consideration given at time of formation for either party's promise under their agreement - as is required by law - yet if performance has taken place then such performance can serve as sufficient consideration for enforcing said contract even without any other formality being present.

In Lawrason v. Mason, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties should be enforced when it was made without consideration and in violation of an existing law. The majority opinion held that the contract could not be enforced because it violated public policy by circumventing a statute prohibiting such contracts. However, Justice Chase dissented from this decision, arguing that while he agreed with the majority's conclusion regarding public policy considerations, he believed that there were other factors at play which should have been taken into account before denying enforcement of the contract. He argued that if one party had already performed their part of the agreement then they ought to receive something for their efforts even if no money or property had changed hands as part of consideration for making such an agreement in violation of a statute. Furthermore, Justice Chase noted that enforcing contracts is important both to protect individuals' rights and also promote commerce by encouraging people to enter into agreements knowing they will be upheld by courts when necessary