Bradley v. Claflin is a Supreme Court case from 1872 that dealt with the issue of a contract between two parties. The plaintiff, Bradley, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Claflin, to purchase a certain amount of cotton. Claflin had agreed to deliver the cotton to Bradley, but failed to do so. Bradley then sued Claflin for breach of contract. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bradley, finding that Claflin had breached the contract and was liable for damages. The Court held that a contract is a binding agreement between two parties, and that when one party fails to fulfill their obligations, the other party is entitled to damages. The Court also held that the damages should be equal to the amount of the contract, plus any additional costs incurred by the plaintiff as a result of the breach. The ruling in Bradley v. Claflin established the principle that when one party fails to fulfill their obligations under a contract, the other party is entitled to damages. This ruling has been cited in numerous cases since then, and is still used today to determine the amount of damages that a party is entitled to when a contract is breached.

In the case of Bradley v. Claflin, Justice Field wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was not supported by precedent or sound legal reasoning. He noted that while it is true that an individual may be held liable for damages caused to another person due to their negligence, this liability should only extend so far as what is reasonable and necessary under the circumstances. In this particular case, Justice Field believed that holding Claflin responsible for all of Bradley's losses was too extreme and would set a dangerous precedent if allowed to stand. Furthermore, he argued that there were other parties who could have been held accountable instead of just one man alone; thus making it unfair to place such an onerous burden on him without any consideration for mitigating factors or alternative solutions. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating his belief that justice had not been served in this instance and urged caution when deciding similar cases in the future.