In the case of Marie Nicolle Les Bois v. Samuel Bramell, the plaintiff argued that a contract between her and defendant was invalid due to lack of consideration. The Supreme Court held that there was sufficient consideration for the contract as it had been executed in good faith by both parties with an expectation of benefit from its performance. The court further noted that even though no money or property exchanged hands, moral obligations can be considered valid considerations under certain circumstances. In this particular instance, since both parties were relying on each other’s promises and expected some form of benefit from their agreement, they could not claim lack of consideration as grounds for invalidating their contract.

In this case, Marie Nicolle Les Bois brought a suit against Samuel Bramell for the recovery of damages resulting from an alleged breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover any damages because she had failed to prove her cause of action. Justice McLean dissented and argued that there was sufficient evidence presented by the plaintiff to support her claim. He noted that although it may have been difficult for her to establish all elements necessary for a successful lawsuit, she should still be allowed some form of relief due to the fact that Bramell had acted in bad faith and with malicious intent towards Les Bois when he breached their agreement. Furthermore, McLean argued that even if certain facts were uncertain or disputed between parties involved in litigation, courts should still consider them as long as they are supported by credible testimony or other reliable sources. Ultimately, Justice McLean concluded his dissent by stating his belief that justice would best be served if Les Bois were granted at least partial relief from Bramell's actions given what appeared on its face as clear misconduct on behalf of him throughout this dispute.