In the case of Seaver v. Bigelows, a dispute arose between two parties over an agreement to purchase and sell land in Massachusetts. The plaintiff, Seaver, alleged that he had agreed with the defendant, Bigelow, to purchase certain lands for $1,000; however upon payment of this sum by Seaver to Bigelow's agent (who was also his son-in-law), it was discovered that title could not be conveyed due to a prior mortgage on the property held by another party. As such no deed or conveyance was ever made from Bigelow to Seaver and thus no legal transfer of ownership occurred. In its ruling on this matter the Supreme Court found in favor of Seaver as they determined that although there had been no formal transfer or delivery of title documents from one party to another - since both parties were aware at all times throughout their negotiations regarding what each expected out of their agreement - then an implied contract existed between them which obligated both sides accordingly under law.

In Seaver v. Bigelows, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it was made without consideration and in violation of an existing statute. The majority opinion held that the contract should not be enforced because it violated public policy by circumventing a law designed to protect creditors from fraudulently transferring property out of their reach. Justice Field dissented, arguing that while he agreed with the majority's conclusion, he believed they had gone too far in their reasoning by holding that all contracts lacking consideration were unenforceable regardless of any other factors present. He argued instead for a more nuanced approach which would consider each case on its own merits and take into account both statutory requirements as well as equitable principles such as good faith and fair dealing before making a decision about enforceability or non-enforceability.