In the case of Martin Very v. Jonas Levy, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made under duress. The appellant, Martin Very, argued that he had entered into an agreement to pay money to Jonas Levy due to threats and intimidation from Levy's agent. However, the court found in favor of Levy and held that contracts made under duress are still enforceable as long as they do not violate public policy or any other law. This decision established a precedent for future cases involving similar issues regarding contractual agreements and their enforcement when one party is forced into them by another through coercion or threat of harm.

In the case of Martin Very v. Jonas Levy, 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 in writing. The majority opinion held that because one party had been misled into signing an agreement due to misrepresentations made by the other party, it would be unfair for them to have their rights determined according to its literal terms. However, Justice Catron disagreed with this interpretation and instead argued that if a court were allowed to interpret contracts differently from how they are written then there would no longer be any certainty or stability in contractual agreements since each could potentially mean something different depending on who is interpreting it. He further noted that such an approach would also lead people away from relying on contracts altogether since they could never know for sure what their obligations actually are under them.