In the case of Pacific Postal Telegraph Cable Company v. O'Connor, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between the Pacific Postal Telegraph Cable Company and O'Connor was valid. O'Connor had contracted with the company to provide telegraph services for a period of five years. The company argued that the contract was invalid because it had not been signed by O'Connor. O'Connor argued that the contract was valid because he had orally agreed to the terms of the contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid. The Court reasoned that the contract was binding because O'Connor had orally agreed to the terms of the contract and had acted in reliance on the contract. The Court also noted that the contract was supported by consideration, as O'Connor had paid the company for the services. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable.

In the dissenting opinion of Pacific Postal Telegraph Cable Company v. O'Connor, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and contrary to established precedent. He noted that in previous cases involving similar facts, it had been held that a contract could be implied from an offer made by one party and accepted by another through performance or conduct rather than express agreement. In this case, he believed there was sufficient evidence to support such an implication as both parties had acted on their understanding of the terms for over two years before any dispute arose between them. Furthermore, he argued that even if no contract existed at all between them then O'Connor should still have been entitled to recover damages based on quantum meruit (payment for services rendered). Ultimately Justice Harlan concluded his dissent with a reminder of how important it is for courts not only to consider what is written but also what has gone unsaid when interpreting contracts so as not to deny justice where none exists due solely to technicalities or lack thereof.