In Bond & Another v. Dustin, 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 the plaintiff, Bond & Another, and the defendant, Dustin. Bond & Another had agreed to pay Dustin a certain sum of money in exchange for the use of a certain piece of land. However, Dustin had failed to deliver the land as promised, and Bond & Another sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that the parties had agreed to all of its terms. Furthermore, the Court held that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that each party had given something of value in exchange for the other's promise. As a result, the Court held that Bond & Another was entitled to damages for the breach of contract.

In the case of Bond & Another v. Dustin, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration. The majority opinion held that no consideration was necessary for an agreement to be enforceable; however, Justice Field dissented from this view and argued that there must always be some form of consideration in order for a contract to be valid and binding upon both parties. He reasoned that if contracts were allowed to stand without any sort of exchange or benefit given by one party to another, then they would become too easily manipulated and abused by those seeking unfair advantages over others. Furthermore, he noted that such agreements would lack mutuality since only one party would have something tangible at stake while the other stood nothing to lose or gain from their end of the bargain. Thus, Justice Field concluded his dissent by arguing against allowing contracts which lacked any form of consideration as being legally enforceable under U.S law