In the case of William M'Cluny vs. Wyllis Silliman, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made without consideration. The plaintiff argued that he had provided services for which he expected payment and that this constituted sufficient consideration to make the agreement binding on both parties. The defendant countered by arguing that there was no legal basis for enforcing such an agreement since it lacked any form of consideration from either party. After considering all arguments presented, the court ruled in favor of the defendant and held that contracts must have some form of mutual exchange or benefit in order to be legally enforceable under common law principles.

In William M'Cluny v. Wyllis Silliman, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms and conditions as agreed upon by both parties. The majority of the court held that an agreement was void because it had been made in violation of a state statute prohibiting such agreements; however, Justice Story dissented from this decision on the grounds that contracts are not rendered invalid simply because they violate public policy or statutes. He reasoned that if one party has already performed their part of the agreement then they should have recourse for damages against any other party who fails to fulfill their obligations under said contract. Furthermore, he argued that allowing courts to nullify contracts based solely on public policy considerations would lead to uncertainty and confusion in commercial transactions since it is impossible for all parties involved in a transaction to know every law or regulation governing them at all times.