Ambler v. Whipple was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between the plaintiff, Ambler, and the defendant, Whipple, for the sale of a horse. Ambler had agreed to pay Whipple $100 for the horse, but Whipple refused to deliver the horse to Ambler. Ambler then sued Whipple for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Ambler and Whipple was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was made in good faith and that both parties had agreed to the terms of the contract. The Court also noted that Ambler had paid the agreed-upon price for the horse and that Whipple had failed to deliver the horse. Therefore, the Court held that Ambler was entitled to damages for breach of contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Ambler and Whipple was valid and enforceable. The Court found that Ambler was entitled to damages for breach of contract due to Whipple's failure to deliver the horse.

In Ambler v. Whipple, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties for the sale of land could be enforced when it had been made without consideration and in violation of a state statute. The majority opinion held that such contracts were voidable at the option of either party, but Justice Field dissented from this decision. He argued that while there may have been some technical violations of law involved in making the contract, these did not render it invalid or unenforceable as long as both parties had acted with good faith and fairness towards each other. Furthermore, he noted that if one party were allowed to repudiate their obligations under such an agreement simply because they found out later on about its illegality then this would create great uncertainty in commercial transactions and lead to injustice being done against innocent persons who relied upon them in good faith. Therefore, Justice Field concluded that even though there may have been some legal infirmities present here due to lack of consideration or statutory violations, these should not prevent enforcement of what otherwise appeared to be a fair agreement between two consenting adults who intended for it to bind them legally.