Atlantic Works v. Brady was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a contract between two parties was enforceable. The case involved a contract between Atlantic Works, a manufacturer of boilers, and Brady, a boiler inspector. Atlantic Works had contracted with Brady to inspect and certify boilers that were to be sold to the United States Navy. Brady had inspected and certified the boilers, but Atlantic Works refused to pay him for his services. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Atlantic Works and Brady was enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid and binding because it was made in good faith and for a lawful purpose. The Court also noted that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had received something of value in exchange for their agreement. The Court also held that Atlantic Works was liable for breach of contract. The Court reasoned that Atlantic Works had failed to fulfill its obligations under the contract and had deprived Brady of the benefit of his bargain. The Court concluded that Brady was entitled to damages for the breach of contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Atlantic Works v. Brady, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a great deal of confusion for lower courts. He argued that under prior decisions by the Supreme Court, an employer could not be held liable for injuries sustained by an employee due to negligence on behalf of a third party contractor hired by said employer. In this case, Brady had been injured while working at Atlantic Works' shipyard when he fell from scaffolding erected by another contractor employed there; however, Justice Field maintained that since it was not foreseeable or within reasonable control of Atlantic Works as their duty did not extend beyond providing safe premises and tools with which employees could work safely - they should therefore be absolved from liability in this instance. Furthermore, he argued that if employers were found liable for such accidents then contractors would become increasingly reluctant to take on jobs involving any potential risk whatsoever - thus leading to fewer opportunities available for workers seeking employment in hazardous occupations like those associated with shipbuilding yards.