Bechtel v. United States was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1879. The case involved a dispute between the United States and the Bechtel Company over a contract for the construction of a lighthouse in the state of California. The Bechtel Company had been awarded the contract by the United States, but the company had failed to complete the project on time and within the agreed-upon budget. The United States sued the Bechtel Company for breach of contract, and the case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the United States, finding that the Bechtel Company had indeed breached its contract with the United States. The Court held that the Bechtel Company was liable for the costs of completing the project, as well as for any damages that the United States had suffered as a result of the breach. The Court also held that the United States was entitled to recover its attorney's fees and costs associated with bringing the lawsuit. In its decision, the Supreme Court established the principle that a party who breaches a contract is liable for all costs associated with the breach, including attorney's fees and costs. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then, and is still an important part of contract law today.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Bechtel v. United States, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and justice. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms, unless there is clear evidence of fraud or mistake. In this case, he believed that no such evidence existed and therefore it would be unjust for the government to refuse payment on grounds of public policy when they had agreed to pay under their own contract with Bechtel. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that Congress had passed an act which allowed contracts made prior to 1868 (the date at issue) could still be enforced if not otherwise prohibited by law; thus he felt it was wrong for the Court to deny enforcement based solely on public policy considerations without any statutory authority prohibiting such contracts from being enforced. Finally, Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting how unfair it would be for one party who has faithfully performed all obligations under a contract only then have those efforts rendered fruitless due simply because another party changed their mind about honoring their agreement after performance had been completed.