Arthur v. Herman was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved two parties, Arthur and Herman, who had entered into a contract for the sale of a piece of land. Arthur had agreed to pay Herman a certain amount of money for the land, but Herman had failed to deliver the deed to the land. Arthur then sued Herman for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Arthur and Herman was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the land. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, as Herman had not delivered the deed to the land. The Court held that Arthur was entitled to damages for breach of contract, and that Herman was liable for the amount of money that Arthur had agreed to pay for the land.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Arthur v. Herman, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding on both of them, regardless of whether it has been fully performed or not. In this case, he noted that there was an agreement between Arthur and Herman to exchange certain lands for money; however, when only one party had fulfilled their part of the bargain (Arthur), they could not then sue for damages due to breach of contract because no such breach had occurred yet. Furthermore, Justice Field stated that if either party failed to perform their obligations under the contract before its expiration date then they would be liable for any losses incurred by the other party as a result thereof. Therefore, since neither side had breached their contractual obligations at this point in time - nor did either have any intention to do so - Justice Field concluded that no actionable claim existed against either party and thus dismissed Arthur's suit against Herman with prejudice.