| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Burke v. Smith was a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1872. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Burke, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Smith, to purchase a steamboat for $2,000. Burke paid Smith the full amount, but Smith failed to deliver the boat. Burke then sued Smith for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Smith was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that Smith had failed to fulfill his contractual obligations and that Burke was entitled to damages. The Court also held that Burke was entitled to recover the full amount of the purchase price, plus interest. The Court's decision in Burke v. Smith established the principle that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and is still used today to determine the liability of parties in breach of contract cases.
In Burke v. Smith, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced even though it had been made in violation of a state law. The majority opinion held that the contract should not be enforced because it violated public policy and thus was voidable at the option of either party. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that contracts are generally binding regardless of any violations of state laws or public policy considerations unless they involve matters which have been specifically prohibited by Congress or some other competent authority. He further noted that if such contracts were deemed invalid simply due to their violation of state laws then there would be no incentive for people to obey those laws in the first place since they would know that their agreements could still be voided after-the-fact. As such, he concluded that while states may choose to impose penalties on individuals who violate certain statutes, these penalties should not extend so far as to render all private agreements entered into in contravention thereof unenforceable by courts