In Loughborough v. Blake, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced even though it had not been signed by both of them. The plaintiff argued that he had performed his part of the agreement and should therefore receive payment from the defendant for services rendered. The defendant argued that since there was no written contract, he did not have to pay anything. After considering all arguments presented, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and held that an oral agreement is just as binding as a written one if both parties agree to its terms and conditions; thus, enforcing contracts without signatures is permissible under certain circumstances.

In Loughborough v. Blake, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration. The majority opinion held that the contract in question was not enforceable due to lack of consideration; however, Justice Story dissented from this ruling and argued that contracts should be upheld if they are fair and equitable regardless of consideration. He reasoned that courts should take into account all relevant circumstances surrounding a given agreement before deciding its validity or invalidity, including any promises made by either party prior to entering into the agreement as well as any subsequent acts which may have altered their respective rights or obligations under said agreement. Furthermore, he asserted that even though there is no legal obligation for one party to perform an act unless something has been promised in return (i.e., consideration), equity demands otherwise since both parties must abide by their mutual understanding at the time of formation of such agreements. Thus, according to Justice Story's dissent in Loughborough v Blake, contracts can still be validly enforced despite lacking traditional considerations so long as they are deemed just and reasonable upon review by a court of law