Pelham v. Rose was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between Pelham and Rose, in which Pelham agreed to pay Rose a certain amount of money for the use of a certain piece of land. Rose argued that the contract was invalid because it was not in writing, while Pelham argued that the contract was valid because it had been orally agreed upon. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Pelham, finding that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court held that the contract was binding because it had been agreed upon by both parties, and that the lack of a written agreement did not invalidate the contract. The Court also noted that the parties had acted in good faith and that the contract had been performed in accordance with its terms. The Court's ruling in Pelham v. Rose established that oral contracts are valid and enforceable, provided that the parties have acted in good faith and that the contract has been performed in accordance with its terms. This ruling has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been used to support the validity of oral contracts in a variety of contexts.

In the case of Pelham v. Rose, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced even though it had been made without consideration. The majority opinion held that contracts must have consideration in order to be enforceable and thus found for the defendant. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that there should not always be a requirement of consideration when enforcing contracts. He argued that if one party has already performed their part of an agreement then they should still receive what is due them under the terms of said agreement regardless of any lack or absence of consideration on either side. In his view, justice required such an outcome and he believed that courts should take into account all relevant circumstances before deciding whether or not to enforce a contract without considering its validity based solely on considerations like those present in this case.