Moss v. Riddle & Co was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court in 1809. The plaintiff, Moss, had sued the defendant for breach of contract and sought damages from them for failing to deliver goods as promised. In their defense, Riddle & Co argued that they were not liable because there was no written agreement between them and Moss; instead, they claimed that any verbal promises made by either party were unenforceable due to lack of consideration or mutuality of obligation. The court disagreed with this argument and held that verbal contracts are enforceable under certain circumstances if there is sufficient evidence to prove an offer was made by one party and accepted by another with both parties having knowledge of what each other expected out of the deal. This ruling established precedent which has been used ever since when determining whether or not a verbal contract is legally binding in nature.

In the case of Moss v. Riddle & Co, Chief Justice John Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was not supported by precedent or common law. He noted that there had been no prior cases where an action for damages had been brought against a third party who was not directly involved in the contract dispute between two other parties. Furthermore, he argued that allowing such actions would open up too many potential liabilities and could lead to confusion and uncertainty among businesses entering into contracts with one another. Ultimately, Marshall concluded that it should be left to Congress to decide whether or not this type of action should be allowed under federal law rather than having it decided by courts on a case-by-case basis.