In Taber v. Perrott and Le, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a contract between two parties was valid even though it had not been signed by both parties. The case arose when William Taber sued John Perrott and Thomas Le for breach of contract after they refused to pay him for goods he had delivered to them as part of an agreement between them. Although there was no written document or signature from either party, the court found that their verbal agreement constituted a binding contract under common law principles. In its decision, the court noted that contracts could be formed without writing if there were sufficient facts indicating mutual assent between two parties who intended to enter into an enforceable arrangement. This ruling established important precedent in American jurisprudence regarding oral contracts and their validity in courts of law.

In Taber v. Perrott and Le, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made without consideration. The majority opinion held that the contract should not be enforced because there was no consideration given for its formation. However, Justice Story dissented from this decision on the grounds that contracts can still be binding even when they are formed without any exchange of value or benefit between both parties involved in the agreement. He argued that such agreements should still remain enforceable as long as they were entered into voluntarily by both sides and did not violate public policy or morals. Furthermore, he noted that courts have historically recognized these types of contracts to some degree and thus their enforcement would help maintain consistency within legal precedent while also promoting fairness among those who enter into them in good faith.