In Bignall v. Gould, the Supreme Court of the United States 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 sum 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 Bignall v. Gould, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and justice. He argued that under Missouri state law, a contract of sale could not be enforced until it had been accepted by both parties; as such, he believed that there was no valid contract between Bignall and Gould at the time of their dispute. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if a valid contract did exist between them prior to its breach by Gould, Bignall should have still been allowed to recover damages for his losses due to Gould's failure to perform on said agreement. In conclusion, Justice Field concluded that since there was no evidence presented which showed any acceptance or consideration given from either party regarding this alleged agreement - nor any proof of performance on behalf of either party - then it would be unjust for one side (Bignall)to suffer loss while allowing the other (Gould)to escape liability altogether.