Arthur v. Rheims is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1877. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Arthur, had contracted with the defendant, Rheims, to purchase a steamboat for $2,000. Arthur paid the full amount, but Rheims refused to deliver the boat. Arthur then sued Rheims for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract 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 other's promise. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of mutuality, meaning that both parties had an obligation to perform. The Court also held that Arthur was entitled to damages for Rheims' breach of contract. The Court found that Arthur was entitled to the difference between the contract price and the market value of the steamboat, plus any other damages that he had suffered as a result of the breach. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that Arthur was entitled to damages for Rheims' breach of contract. The Court found that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Arthur was entitled to the difference between the contract price and the market value of the steamboat, plus any other damages that he had suffered as a result of the breach.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Arthur v. Rheims, a case concerning whether or not an individual could be held liable for damages caused by their negligence when they had no knowledge of the damage being done. Justice Field argued that it was unfair to hold someone responsible for something they did not know about and were unaware of causing harm. He believed that this would lead to people becoming overly cautious and fearful of any action taken out of fear that it may cause harm without them knowing, which he felt would have a detrimental effect on society as a whole. Furthermore, he noted that if individuals are held liable for such actions then there is no incentive to take reasonable precautions against potential harms since one cannot be sure what will happen even with due care taken. In conclusion, Justice Field argued against holding someone accountable for damages caused through ignorance or lack of knowledge because doing so would create an atmosphere where people become too afraid to act at all out of fear from potential liability issues arising from unknown consequences resulting from their actions.