In the case of William McDonald, Administrator of Duncan McArthur, Deceased v. Matthew Hobson, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties for goods and services could be enforced when one party had died before fulfilling their obligations under the agreement. The court held that contracts are binding on both parties regardless of death or other intervening events unless otherwise specified in writing by either party prior to entering into an agreement. Furthermore, it determined that if a deceased person's estate is liable for any debts incurred during his lifetime then those responsible for administering said estate must fulfill such contractual obligations as they were originally agreed upon. This ruling established important precedent regarding contract law and its application even after death has occurred.

In the dissenting opinion of William McDonald, Administrator of Duncan McArthur, Deceased v. Matthew Hobson (1849), Justice Daniel argued that the majority had erred in their interpretation of a contract between McArthur and Hobson. He noted that while it was true that there were ambiguities in the language used by both parties, these should not be interpreted as an admission to any particular construction or meaning; rather they should be resolved according to what is reasonable under all circumstances. Furthermore, he argued that if one party's interpretation was accepted over another's then this would lead to unjust results for either party depending on which side prevailed. Thus he concluded that since no clear agreement could be determined from the language used by both parties then neither party should prevail and instead each must bear their own costs associated with bringing suit against one another.