 Murphy determined that the contracts in issue met all four prongs of this test and so W. J. Howey could be held liable for violating § 5 of the Securities Act of 1933.Furthermore, Murphy held that the fact that some of the investors chose to use services other than those of Howey-in-the-Hills to tend to the groves was irrelevant because §5 forbids the offer of unregistered securities as well as the sale of them.Justice Frankfurter wrote a brief dissenting opinion.