In the case of Wood, Abbott and Company v. Alexander C. Davis, the appellants were a partnership that had sold goods to Davis on credit with an agreement for payment in installments over time. When Davis failed to make payments as agreed upon, the appellants sued him for breach of contract and sought damages from him. The Supreme Court held that although there was no written evidence of their agreement between them, it could be inferred from circumstantial evidence such as letters exchanged between them prior to entering into a contract or other documents related to their business dealings together which showed they had entered into an oral agreement regarding payment terms for goods purchased by Davis on credit. The court also found that since both parties knew about this arrangement at the time they entered into it, then any failure by either party to fulfill its obligations would constitute a breach of contract and thus entitle one side or another to seek damages against each other accordingly.

In the case of Wood, Abbott and Company v. Alexander C. Davis, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made in violation of an existing state law. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable because they violated public policy as expressed by the state legislature through its laws. However, Justice Grier dissented from this decision on several grounds. He argued that while it is true that courts should not enforce contracts which violate public policy or are contrary to law, there may still be circumstances where enforcement would be appropriate if both parties acted in good faith and with reasonable expectations of performance under their agreement at the time it was entered into. Furthermore, he noted that even though one party may have technically broken a law or violated public policy by entering into such an agreement does not necessarily mean they should suffer all consequences for doing so; rather than denying them any relief whatsoever due to their mistake or ignorance of applicable laws, perhaps some form of equitable remedy might instead be available depending on the particular facts and circumstances involved in each case.