In Robinson v. Campbell, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case involving a contract dispute between two parties. The plaintiff, Robinson, had contracted with defendant Campbell to build him a house in exchange for payment of $1,000 and other considerations. After completion of the work by Campbell and receipt of some payments from Robinson, there remained an unpaid balance due to Campbell for his services rendered on the project. In response to this debt owed by Robinson to Campbell, he filed suit against him seeking recovery under breach-of-contract principles established at common law as well as under state statutes that provided additional remedies for such breaches. The court ultimately held that both common law and statutory remedies were available in this situation; however it was up to each party's discretion which remedy they chose when pursuing their claim or defense in court proceedings related thereto.

In Robinson v. Campbell, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties should be enforced even though it had been made without consideration. The majority opinion held that the contract could not be enforced because there was no consideration to support it. Justice Story dissented from this decision and argued that contracts do not need to have consideration in order for them to be enforceable. He reasoned that if a party voluntarily enters into an agreement, then they are bound by its terms regardless of whether or not something of value is exchanged as part of the deal. Furthermore, he noted that courts should strive to uphold agreements whenever possible so long as both parties entered into them willingly and knowingly without any duress or fraud being involved in their formation.