In the case of The New Jersey Steam Navigation Company, Respondents and Appellants v. The Merchants' Bank of Boston, Libellants, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration. At issue was an agreement in which the New Jersey Steam Navigation Company agreed to pay $20,000 for goods purchased from the Merchants' Bank of Boston. However, no money changed hands at that time and so there was no consideration given by either party for their respective promises under this agreement. Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that even though there was no consideration exchanged between both parties at the time they entered into this contract; because each side had promised something valuable in exchange for what they were receiving from one another – i.e., payment or delivery of goods – then this promise constituted sufficient legal grounds upon which to enforce such a contract as valid and binding on both sides.

In the case of The New Jersey Steam Navigation Company v. The Merchants' Bank of Boston, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written and not interpreted by courts to mean something different than what was agreed upon. Specifically, in this case, the dissent disagreed with the majority's interpretation that an agreement for payment on demand meant payment within a reasonable time frame instead of immediately when demanded. This disagreement stemmed from their belief that if parties intended for such an interpretation they would have included it in their original agreement rather than leaving it up to judicial discretion. Furthermore, they felt that allowing judges to interpret contracts could lead to uncertainty and confusion among those entering into agreements because there is no guarantee how any given court will rule on similar cases going forward.