In Thomas Ellicott and Jonathan Meredith, Plaintiffs in Error v. William Pearl, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when one party had not performed their part of the agreement. The plaintiffs argued that they had entered into an agreement with Pearl whereby he would pay them for certain services rendered by them; however, Pearl refused to pay despite having received full value from their services. The court held that contracts are binding on both parties and must be fulfilled according to its terms or else damages may be awarded against those who breach it. Furthermore, if one party fails to perform his obligations under a contract without legal excuse then he is liable for any losses suffered by the other party as a result of such non-performance. Thus, in this case it was determined that Pearl should have paid Ellicott and Meredith what he owed them under their contract and therefore ordered him to do so accordingly.

In Thomas Ellicott and Jonathan Meredith, Plaintiffs in Error v. William Pearl, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made without consideration. The majority opinion held that the contract was unenforceable because there had been no consideration given for its formation. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision on the grounds that an agreement should not be invalidated simply because of lack of consideration; rather, he argued that courts should look at all relevant facts surrounding a case before making their determination as to enforceability or non-enforceability of contracts. He further stated that even though there may have been no actual exchange of money or goods in this particular instance, other considerations such as promises and obligations were present which would make enforcement appropriate under certain circumstances. Ultimately then, Justice McLean concluded by asserting his belief that agreements should only be declared void when they are clearly contrary to public policy or law - not merely due to lack of monetary compensation during formation