| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

In the case of Richard B. Alexander v. Moses Graham, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration and in violation of a state statute. The plaintiff argued that he had entered into an agreement to purchase land from the defendant for $1,000 but did not pay any money at the time of signing due to his belief that there would be no need as long as both parties kept their word. The defendant claimed that this violated a state law requiring all contracts involving real estate to include some form of consideration or payment before they were validly executed and thus should not be enforceable by either party. After considering both sides’ arguments, the court ultimately ruled in favor of Graham on grounds that even though Alexander believed he was entering into an enforceable contract, it still failed to meet legal requirements set forth by applicable statutes and therefore could not stand up in court.
In the case of Richard B. Alexander v. Moses Graham, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff had failed to prove his right to recover damages from the defendant for an alleged breach of contract. He noted that while there was evidence presented showing that some kind of agreement existed between them, it did not appear to be supported by any consideration or other legal obligation on either party's part and thus could not form a valid basis for recovery under existing law. Furthermore, he contended that even if such an agreement were found to exist, it would still need further proof as to its terms and conditions before any damages could be awarded in favor of one party over another. In conclusion, Justice McLean concluded that since no sufficient proof had been provided regarding either the existence or content of this purported contract between Alexander and Graham, judgment should have been entered in favor of the latter rather than against him as was done by majority opinion