In Benites v. Hampton, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was between a husband and wife, and it provided that the husband would pay the wife a certain amount of money each month for the rest of her life. The husband had failed to make the payments, and the wife sued him for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was not against public policy, and that it was not contrary to any law or statute. The Court also noted that the contract was not unconscionable, and that it was not against the interests of either party. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that the husband was liable for breach of contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Benites v. Hampton, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that under California law, a contract for personal services could not be assigned without the consent of both parties to the original agreement. The plaintiff had agreed to work as an employee of defendant Hampton for a period of three years; however, after two years he sold his interest in this contract to another party who then sought payment from Hampton for those remaining months on behalf of Benites. Justice Field argued that since no such assignment was made with mutual consent between all parties involved, it would have been impossible for any other person or entity to enforce its terms against either party - thus rendering any claim by said third-party invalid and unenforceable under California law at the time. Furthermore, he noted that even if there were some form of implied authority given by one party (in this case Benites) allowing another individual or entity (the third-party purchaser) to take over their contractual obligations towards another (Hampton), such action still did not constitute an actual assignment which would allow them legal standing in court proceedings related thereto. In conclusion, Justice Field held that because no valid assignment existed between all relevant parties according to state laws governing contracts at issue here - namely those pertaining specifically within California - then neither side could legally seek enforcement thereof against each other nor grant others permission do so on their behalf either directly or indirectly through implication alone