In the case of Wiscart, et al. Plaintiffs in Error v. Dauchy, Defendant in Error, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when one party had not fulfilled their obligations under it. The plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to damages for breach of contract because the defendant had failed to fulfill his promise and deliver goods as agreed upon by both parties. The court ruled that although there was no express agreement between them regarding damages for breach of contract, an implied obligation existed which allowed for such compensation if one party did not fulfill their part of the bargain. This decision established precedent allowing courts to award damages even when contracts do not explicitly provide for them and set forth guidelines on how these awards should be calculated based on what is reasonable given all circumstances surrounding a particular case.

In the case of Wiscart et al. Plaintiffs in Error v. Dauchy, Defendant in Error, Justice Chase wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that the Court should not have granted judgment for the defendant on grounds of prescription (the expiration of time to bring an action). He argued that there was no evidence presented at trial showing when or how long ago possession had been taken by either party and thus it could not be determined whether or not prescription applied. Furthermore, he noted that even if it did apply, this would only bar recovery from one who has held possession for twenty years without interruption; however here neither party had uninterrupted possession so they were both equally entitled to recover their respective claims against each other. Therefore he concluded that since there was no proof as to which party first took possession and since both parties were equally entitled to recover their respective claims against each other regardless of any prior possessory rights, judgement should have been rendered for whichever side proved its claim with greater certainty and clearness than the other side's counterclaims.