The Troy Iron and Nail Factory (Appellant) brought a case against George Odiorne, Jr. and Francis Odiorne (Respondents). The Appellant claimed that the Respondents had breached their contract by failing to pay for goods they had purchased from the Appellant. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire found in favor of the Respondents, ruling that there was no evidence to support the claim made by the Appellant. On appeal before the United States Supreme Court, it was argued that under New Hampshire law at this time, an action could be maintained on a simple contract without any proof of consideration or delivery of goods as long as it could be proven that there was an agreement between both parties. However, after reviewing all relevant documents and testimony presented during trial proceedings in lower courts, including affidavits from witnesses who were present when contracts were signed but not delivered upon due to non-payment by respondents;the US Supreme Court affirmed decision rendered below finding no sufficient evidence existed to prove breach of contract occurred between parties thus affirming judgment entered in favor of respondents .

In the case of The Troy Iron and Nail Factory v. George Odiorne, Jr., and Francis Odiorne, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced even if it is not in writing. The majority had ruled that an oral agreement was unenforceable due to its lack of written evidence; however, the dissent disagreed with this ruling on several grounds. First, they argued that there was sufficient proof from witnesses who testified to both parties’ understanding of their agreement for it to be enforceable under common law principles. Second, they contended that upholding such contracts would encourage people to enter into agreements without fear of them being invalidated by a court later on down the line. Finally, they noted how enforcing these types of contracts could help protect individuals from fraud or other forms of deceitful behavior when entering into business dealings with others as well as promote economic growth through increased trade activity among citizens within a state or country. Ultimately then, while recognizing some potential drawbacks associated with allowing verbal agreements to stand in court proceedings like this one – namely difficulty proving what exactly each party agreed upon –the dissent concluded that such risks were outweighed by all other considerations at hand here and thus urged for an affirmation rather than reversal decision regarding this matter before them today