Henry Webster brought a case to the Supreme Court against Peter Cooper. Webster had purchased bonds from Cooper, but when he tried to collect on them, Cooper refused payment. The court ruled in favor of Webster and ordered that he be paid for his bonds plus interest due since the date of purchase. They found that although there were some discrepancies between what was written on the bond and what was agreed upon verbally by both parties, it did not invalidate their agreement as long as all other conditions were met. Furthermore, they held that verbal agreements are just as binding as written ones if they can be proven through witnesses or other evidence presented in court. This ruling established an important precedent for contract law which still stands today: verbal contracts are legally enforceable so long as all necessary elements have been fulfilled by both parties involved

In the case of Henry Webster v. Peter Cooper, Justice Grier delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to prove his claim. He noted that while it was true that there were certain facts established by both parties, such as the existence of an agreement between them and its terms, these facts did not provide enough proof for a court to make a judgment on whether or not Cooper had breached their contract. Furthermore, Grier pointed out that even if all other elements necessary for proving breach of contract were present - such as consideration and intent - they still could not be proven without additional evidence from either party. As such, he concluded that since no clear violation could be determined based on what was presented before the court at this time, Webster's suit should have been dismissed instead of being granted relief by way of damages against Cooper.