In the case of Hollingsworth Magniac, Daniel Smith Magniac, and William Jardine v. John R. Thomson, the appellants argued that they had a right to sue for damages due to an alleged breach of contract by Thomson. The Supreme Court held that since there was no evidence presented in court as to whether or not a contract existed between the parties, it could not be determined if any damages were owed and thus dismissed the appeal. This decision established precedent regarding contracts which are made without written documentation; such agreements must have sufficient proof provided in order for them to be enforced by courts of law.

In the case of Hollingsworth Magniac, Daniel Smith Magniac, and William Jardine v. John R. Thomson, the appellants argued that they had a right to recover damages from Thomson for his breach of contract in failing to deliver goods as agreed upon in their contract. The majority opinion held that there was no evidence presented by the appellants which showed any actual damage suffered due to Thomson's failure to fulfill his contractual obligations; thus, they were not entitled to recover damages from him. However, Justice Grier dissented with this ruling and argued that while it is true that no direct proof of loss or injury was provided by the appellants at trial, it should be assumed under common law principles that some kind of harm must have been caused by Thompson's breach since he failed to perform on an agreement made between two parties who both expected something out of it. Therefore, Justice Grier concluded that even though there may not have been any tangible evidence presented at trial showing specific losses incurred due to Thompson’s actions – such as lost profits or other financial costs –the court should still recognize some form of legal remedy for those affected by his breach and award them appropriate compensation accordingly