In Robinson et al. v. Elliott, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid. The contract in question was between the plaintiff, Robinson, and the defendant, Elliott. Robinson had agreed to sell Elliott a tract of land in South Carolina for $2,000. Elliott had paid the full amount, but Robinson refused to deliver the deed to the land. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was in writing and that both parties had agreed to its terms. The Court also noted that Elliott had paid the full amount of the purchase price and that Robinson had not provided any evidence that the contract was invalid. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable and that Elliott was entitled to the deed to the land. The Court ordered Robinson to deliver the deed to Elliott.

The dissenting opinion in Robinson et al. v. Elliott argued that the majority's decision was an incorrect interpretation of the law and would lead to unjust results for those involved in the case. The dissent argued that under South Carolina state law, a contract between two parties could not be voided by one party without providing compensation to the other party unless there were specific circumstances present which allowed it. In this case, no such circumstances existed so therefore any attempt to void or modify the contract should have been considered invalid and unenforceable as per South Carolina state law at that time. Furthermore, since both parties had acted upon their agreement with each other prior to its attempted modification or revocation, they should have been held accountable for fulfilling their obligations as stated in said agreement regardless of whether either side wanted out of it later on down the line.