In the 1913 case Metzger Motor Car Company v. Parrot, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Metzger Motor Car Company. The dispute arose when a car sold by Metzger to Parrot was repossessed due to non-payment and then resold without providing any notice to Parrot. The court held that under Michigan law, which governed this transaction, no such notice was required before resale after repossession for default on payment terms. Therefore, there were no grounds for recovery from either party involved in the subsequent sale of the vehicle - neither from the purchaser nor from those who facilitated or profited from it (including auctioneers). This decision clarified legal expectations around automobile sales contracts and reinforced sellers' rights when buyers fail to meet their financial obligations.

In the dissenting opinion for Metzger Motor Car Company v. Parrot, the justice disagreed with the majority's ruling that a contract between two parties was not enforceable due to lack of consideration. The justice argued that there was indeed sufficient consideration present in this case because both parties had agreed upon terms and conditions which were beneficial to each other. This included an agreement by one party to sell their product exclusively through another party, while the latter promised to promote and sell said product on behalf of the former. According to this view, such mutual promises constituted valid consideration under contract law principles and should have been recognized as such by the court. Therefore, it was contended that dismissing these contractual obligations based on perceived inadequacy or absence of consideration undermined established legal norms governing contracts and commercial transactions.