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 the case of Ambler v. Whipple, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties should be enforced or not. The majority opinion held that since there had been no consideration for the agreement, it could not be enforced and thus must be voided. However, in his dissenting opinion Justice Field argued that while consideration may have been lacking at first glance, upon further examination it became clear that both parties had received something of value from their agreement; namely an exchange of promises which provided each party with some benefit or advantage they would otherwise not have enjoyed without entering into said contract. He concluded by stating that such agreements were valid and enforceable under law despite any lack of formal consideration as long as both sides derived some sort of benefit from them.