Sturges v. Crowninshield was a landmark Supreme Court case that established the principle of contract law known as "freedom of contract." The case involved two parties, Sturges and Crowninshield, who had entered into an agreement for the sale of certain goods. When Sturges failed to make payment on time, Crowninshield sued him for breach of contract. In its ruling, the Supreme Court held that contracts are binding upon both parties and must be enforced according to their terms unless there is fraud or mistake in making them. Furthermore, it stated that individuals have a right to enter into any lawful agreement they choose without interference from government or other third-party entities. This decision set forth important principles regarding freedom of contract which remain relevant today in many areas including business transactions and labor agreements between employers and employees.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Sturges v. Crowninshield argued that a contract should be enforced as written, and not interpreted by courts to mean something different than what was agreed upon between the parties. The majority opinion had held that contracts could be modified or changed if they were found to be "unconscionable," but Justice Story disagreed with this interpretation, arguing that it would lead to uncertainty and unpredictability in contractual relationships. He further argued that any changes made should only come from an act of Congress, rather than through judicial interpretation. In his view, allowing judges to modify contracts based on their own personal opinions would undermine the sanctity of private agreements and create chaos in commercial transactions.