John P. Van Ness and his wife Marcia brought a case against Perez Pacard to the Supreme Court of the United States in 1829. The couple had purchased land from Pacard, but he later refused to honor their deed and tried to reclaim it for himself. In response, they sued him for breach of contract and sought damages as well as an injunction preventing him from taking possession of the property again. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of John P. Van Ness and Marcia, finding that Pacard had indeed breached their contract by refusing to recognize their ownership rights over the land they had purchased from him previously. Furthermore, they were awarded damages equal to what would have been paid if he had honored his agreement with them originally; additionally, an injunction was issued prohibiting any further attempts on his part at re-claiming or interfering with their rightful ownership over said property

In the case of John P. Van Ness and Marcia his wife, Plaintiffs in Error vs. Perez Pacard, Defendant in Error, the dissenting opinion was that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written unless there is evidence of fraud or mistake. The majority opinion held that an agreement could not be enforced if it did not comply with certain formalities required by law; however, Justice Story argued that this would lead to injustice because contracts are often made without any intention to violate the law and yet still fail to meet its requirements due to ignorance or oversight on either side. He also noted that such a ruling would encourage people who have been wronged by another party's breach of contract to seek legal remedies instead of relying on their own judgment when deciding how best to resolve disputes among themselves. Finally, he concluded by stating that courts should only interfere with private agreements when necessary for public policy reasons rather than simply enforcing rigid rules which may result in unfairness towards one party over another.