In Elisha Winn and Others v. William Patterson, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case involving an alleged breach of contract between two parties. The plaintiffs in error were Elisha Winn and others who had entered into a contract with defendant William Patterson to purchase land from him in Georgia for $2,000. After making payments on the land, they discovered that it was not owned by Patterson but instead belonged to another party who refused to transfer title or accept payment from them. The plaintiffs argued that their agreement with Patterson should be enforced as if he had been able to convey title since they had already made payments toward its purchase price; however, the court held that there could be no recovery because there was no evidence of any consideration given by either party at the time when they entered into their agreement which would have enabled them to enforce it against each other upon discovery of this defect in title. Ultimately, this decision established precedent for contracts requiring mutual consideration before being legally binding under U.S law

In the case of Elisha Winn and Others v. William Patterson, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written. The majority had ruled that an agreement to pay for goods in installments was void because it did not specify when each payment was due; however, the dissent disagreed with this ruling on the grounds that such details were unnecessary since both parties knew what they agreed upon and there is no evidence of fraud or mistake. Furthermore, if contracts are allowed to be voided simply because certain details are missing then creditors would have little incentive to enter into agreements with debtors who may lack funds at any given time but can still make payments over a period of time. Therefore, according to the dissenters, enforcing contracts as written is essential for protecting both creditors and debtors alike from potential harm caused by ambiguous terms or conditions which could lead to costly litigation down the road.