In Malarin v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a contract between two parties is binding even if it was made in violation of an existing law. The case involved a dispute over the sale of goods by one party to another without paying customs duties on them as required by federal law. The purchaser argued that since they had not paid the duty, their contract with the seller was void and unenforceable under U.S. law; however, the court held that regardless of whether or not there had been any breach of federal laws regarding customs duties, both parties were still bound to fulfill their contractual obligations according to its terms and conditions as written in good faith at time of signing. This ruling established precedent for future cases involving contracts made in violation of existing laws - such agreements are still legally enforceable unless otherwise specified within them or declared invalid by a higher court authority

In Malarin v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made in violation of an existing law. The majority opinion held that such contracts were unenforceable and thus not binding on either party. However, Justice Grier dissented from this decision, arguing that while the contract may have violated a law at the time of its formation, it should still be enforceable since both parties had acted in good faith and with no intention to break any laws or regulations. He argued further that enforcing these types of contracts would help promote fairness and justice by allowing people who entered into agreements without knowledge of their illegality to receive some form of compensation for their efforts instead being left completely empty-handed due to technicalities beyond their control.