Black v. Curran was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1871. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Black, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Curran, to purchase a steamboat for $2,000. Black paid the full amount, but Curran refused to deliver the boat. Black then sued Curran for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Curran was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that Curran had failed to fulfill his obligations under the contract and that Black was entitled to damages. The Court also held that Black was entitled to recover the full amount of the purchase price, plus interest. The Court's decision in Black v. Curran established that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages, and that the damages should be equal to the amount of the purchase price, plus interest. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and is still an important precedent in contract law.

In the case of Black v. Curran, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had misapplied the law and failed to consider important facts. He noted that there was no dispute as to whether or not an agreement existed between Black and Curran; rather, it was only disputed as to what terms were included in said agreement. The majority held that since there was no written contract between them, they could not enforce any verbal promises made by either party. However, Justice Field disagreed with this conclusion because he believed that when two parties enter into an oral agreement for services rendered or goods exchanged, then both parties are bound by their respective obligations under such agreements regardless of whether those obligations are expressed verbally or in writing. Furthermore, Justice Field pointed out that even if one party fails to perform his part of the bargain due to some unforeseen circumstance beyond his control (such as death), then neither should be allowed to benefit from such failure at the expense of another's detriment - especially when it is clear from all evidence presented during trial what each party's expectations were prior thereto.