In the case of Robert R. Barrow v Nathaniel B. Hill, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration and with no intention to perform on either side. The plaintiff in error argued that he had entered into an agreement with the defendant for certain services, but that there was no consideration given or received by either party at the time of making said agreement and thus it should not be enforceable. The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that although there may have been no actual exchange of money or goods as part of this particular transaction, both parties intended to enter into a binding contract which would be legally enforceable despite its lack of consideration. This decision established precedent for future cases involving contracts lacking any form of tangible compensation exchanged between two parties; such agreements can still be held valid if they are made in good faith and with intent from both sides to fulfill their obligations under said contract

In the case of Robert R. Barrow v Nathaniel B. Hill, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages from the defendant for breach of contract. He reasoned that although there were some ambiguities in the language used by both parties, it was clear that they had entered into an agreement and thus should be held accountable for their actions under its terms. Furthermore, he noted that even if one party had acted negligently or carelessly during negotiations, this did not necessarily mean they could not be held liable for any resulting losses suffered by another party as a result of their breach of contract. In conclusion, Justice McLean concluded that since there was sufficient evidence to prove a valid agreement between both parties and no legal impediment preventing recovery on behalf of either side; therefore Mr Barrow should have been allowed to receive compensation from Mr Hill for his losses caused by his breach of contract.