In the case of Bradstreet Company v. Higgins, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The plaintiff, Bradstreet Company, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Higgins, to purchase a certain amount of goods. The contract stated that the goods were to be delivered to the plaintiff within a certain time frame. However, the defendant failed to deliver the goods within the specified time frame. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the defendant had breached the contract by failing to deliver the goods within the specified time frame. The Court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court noted that the defendant had not provided any evidence to show that the contract was invalid or unenforceable. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable and that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court also noted that the defendant had not provided any evidence to show that the contract was invalid or unenforceable. This case established that a contract is valid and enforceable if it is entered into in good faith and with consideration. It also established that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Bradstreet Company v. Higgins, arguing that the majority's decision was an incorrect interpretation of a contract between two parties. He argued that it was not necessary to consider any extraneous evidence when interpreting the language of a contract and instead should focus on what is written within its four corners. Furthermore, he believed that if there were ambiguities or uncertainties in the agreement then they should be resolved by looking at other documents related to it such as letters exchanged between both parties prior to signing or even their subsequent conduct after entering into said agreement. In this particular case, Justice Field felt that there had been sufficient evidence presented which showed an understanding between both sides regarding certain terms and conditions which contradicted those found in writing within the actual document itself; thus making his argument for why extrinsic evidence should have been considered before reaching a conclusion about its meaning and intent.