In Lindo v. Gardner, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable even though it had been made without consideration. The case involved an agreement between James Lindo and William Gardner in which Gardner agreed to pay Lindo $2,000 for certain goods he had purchased from him. Although there was no consideration given by either party at the time of making the contract, they both intended to be bound by its terms. The court found that this intention alone was sufficient to make their agreement binding on them both and thus upheld its validity as a legally enforceable contract.

In Lindo v. Gardner, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract made between two parties in Jamaica could be enforced in the United States. The majority opinion held that it could not because of differences between English and American law. However, Justice Chase dissented from this decision on the grounds that contracts should be enforceable regardless of where they were formed or what laws governed them at the time of formation. He argued that if a contract is valid under one system of laws then it should remain so even when transferred to another jurisdiction with different legal systems; otherwise commerce would suffer greatly due to uncertainty about which contracts are binding and which are not. Furthermore, he noted that enforcing foreign contracts encourages international trade by providing assurance for both sides involved in an agreement and thus benefits all nations involved in such transactions.