In the case of Ross v. Triplett, the Supreme Court ruled that a contract between two parties was binding even if it had been made without consideration. The plaintiff in this case, William Ross, had entered into an agreement with defendant John Triplett to pay him for his services as a surveyor and overseer on one of Ross’s farms. However, when Triplett attempted to collect payment from Ross after completing his work, he refused to do so because there was no consideration given by either party at the time they entered into their agreement. The court held that although there was no consideration exchanged between them at the time of entering into their contract, it did not invalidate its terms or render it unenforceable; instead they found that mutual promises were sufficient evidence of a valid and enforceable contract between both parties. This ruling established precedent for future cases involving contracts without considerations being upheld in court despite lacking any form of exchange upon signing such agreements.

In the case of Ross v. Triplett, Chief Justice John Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had failed to consider an important principle of law: that when two parties have entered into a contract, they are both bound by its terms and conditions. He reasoned that if one party was allowed to breach their agreement without consequence, then it would be difficult for any other person or business to enter into contracts with confidence knowing that either side could break them at will. Furthermore, he noted that allowing such behavior would lead to chaos as people sought out ways around their contractual obligations whenever it suited them. In conclusion, Chief Justice Marshall believed the majority's decision was wrong and should not stand because it undermined fundamental principles of contract law.