In the case of Archibald K. Smith v Alfred Clapp, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration. The plaintiff argued that he had performed his part of an agreement with the defendant and should therefore receive payment for his services as promised in their contract. The defendant argued that since there was no consideration given by either party at the time of making the agreement, it was not legally binding and thus did not need to be honored. After considering both sides' arguments, the court ruled in favor of Smith and held that contracts can still be enforceable even if they are made without any form of consideration from either party involved. This decision established precedent for future cases involving similar issues regarding contractual agreements lacking consideration at formation.

In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration. The majority opinion held that the contract was not enforceable because there was no consideration given by either party. However, Justice Story dissented from this decision and argued that contracts should be enforced even if they are made without consideration as long as both parties intended for them to be binding. He reasoned that such contracts were often beneficial to society and encouraged people to enter into agreements with each other in good faith. Furthermore, he noted that enforcing these types of contracts would help ensure fairness and justice in commercial transactions since one party could not take advantage of another simply because they did not provide any form of compensation or benefit for entering into an agreement. Ultimately, Justice Story's dissent failed to sway the majority opinion but his arguments remain relevant today when considering how best to interpret contractual obligations between individuals or businesses.