In the case of John C. Sheppard and Others v. John Wilson, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when one party had not been given full disclosure about certain aspects of it before signing. The plaintiffs in error argued that they were unaware that their agreement with Wilson would result in them having to pay him an additional sum for his services as a surveyor beyond what they had originally agreed upon, and thus sought relief from this obligation on grounds of fraud or mistake. The court ultimately found against the plaintiffs, ruling that while there may have been some misrepresentation involved due to lack of full disclosure by Wilson prior to entering into the contract, it did not rise to level necessary for rescission under either fraud or mistake claims because all material facts were known at time of execution and no intentional deception occurred on part of defendant.

In the case of John C. Sheppard and Others v. John Wilson, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties should be enforced when it had been made without consideration or any other form of legal obligation. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable in court, but Justice McLean dissented from this decision on the grounds that there may be cases where an agreement is binding even if no consideration has been given for it. He argued that agreements could still be valid if they were based on mutual trust and confidence between two parties, as well as moral obligations which are recognized by society at large. Furthermore, he noted that courts have historically enforced contracts which do not contain any considerations because they serve to protect innocent individuals who rely upon them in good faith.