Charles Bliven and Edward B. Mead brought a case against The New England Screw Company to the Supreme Court in 1859. They argued that they had been wrongfully discharged from their employment with the company, which was based on an agreement made between them and the company's agent. The court found for Bliven and Mead, ruling that there was sufficient evidence of an implied contract between them and the agent, even though no written document existed as proof of such a contract. Furthermore, it held that since this agreement had not been fulfilled by either party due to circumstances beyond their control, both parties were entitled to damages for breach of contract under common law principles. This decision established important precedent regarding contracts made without any formal documentation or signatures being exchanged; namely that if one party can prove through other means (such as testimony) that an implicit understanding exists between two parties then it is legally binding just like any other contractual arrangement would be.

In the dissenting opinion of Charles Bliven and Edward B. Mead v. The New England Screw Company, Justice Curtis argued that the decision of the lower court should be reversed because it was based on an erroneous interpretation of a contract between the two parties. He believed that there were ambiguities in certain parts of the contract which could not be resolved by looking at its literal language alone; instead, he argued for a more expansive approach to interpreting contracts which would take into account all relevant evidence presented in order to determine what both parties intended when they entered into their agreement. Furthermore, he noted that even if one party had made mistakes or acted negligently during negotiations, this did not necessarily mean that they should suffer any legal consequences as long as those errors were not intentional or fraudulent in nature. Ultimately, Justice Curtis concluded his dissent by arguing for greater flexibility when interpreting contracts so as to ensure fairness and justice for all involved parties regardless of whether either side had made mistakes along the way.