In California Artificial Stone Paving Company v. Molitor, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The plaintiff, California Artificial Stone Paving Company, had contracted with the defendant, Molitor, to pave a street in San Francisco. The contract specified that the paving was to be done with artificial stone. Molitor had completed the work, but the plaintiff refused to pay, claiming that the contract was invalid because it did not specify the type of artificial stone to be used. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was not invalidated by the lack of a specification of the type of artificial stone to be used. The Court noted that the parties had agreed to the use of artificial stone, and that the type of stone was a matter of detail that could be left to the discretion of the contractor. The Court also noted that the contract did not require the use of any particular type of artificial stone, and that the parties had not agreed to any particular type. Therefore, the Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in California Artificial Stone Paving Company v. Molitor, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding on both of them, regardless of any subsequent changes to it or its terms. In this case, he noted that there had been an agreement between the plaintiff and defendant for payment of $1 per square yard for paving work done by the plaintiff; however, after completion of said work, they agreed to reduce it to 75 cents per square yard due to financial hardship experienced by the defendant. Justice Field believed this new agreement should have been enforced as valid under law since both parties had entered into it willingly and with full knowledge of what they were agreeing upon. Furthermore, he stated that if one party could not fulfill their part then damages would need to be paid accordingly but no such action was taken here so therefore no breach occurred either way thus making enforcement necessary according to him.