Carite v. Trotot was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1881. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Carite, had contracted with the defendant, Trotot, to purchase a steamboat for $2,000. Carite paid Trotot $1,000 in cash and gave him a promissory note for the remaining $1,000. Trotot then sold the steamboat to a third party without Carite's knowledge or consent. The Supreme Court held that Trotot had breached the contract with Carite and was liable for damages. The Court found that Trotot had acted in bad faith by selling the steamboat to a third party without Carite's knowledge or consent. The Court also held that Carite was entitled to recover the $1,000 he had paid to Trotot, as well as any damages he had suffered as a result of the breach. The Court's decision in Carite v. Trotot established that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages, even if the breach was done in good faith. 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.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Carite v. Trotot, arguing that the majority had misconstrued both the facts of the case and applicable law. He argued that under Spanish law, which was still in effect at the time of this dispute, a contract for labor could not be enforced against an employer unless it was made with his express consent or knowledge; thus, he contended that since there was no evidence to suggest such consent or knowledge on behalf of Trotot's predecessor-in-interest (the original owner), any agreement between Carite and him should have been held invalid. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if such an agreement did exist between them prior to Trotot's purchase of land from said predecessor-in-interest (which would make it binding upon him as well), its terms were so vague as to render it unenforceable by either party. In conclusion, Justice Field maintained that while he sympathized with Carite’s plight due to her lack of legal representation during negotiations over her wages and other conditions related thereto—a situation which led her into signing a contract she may not have fully understood—he believed justice demanded upholding existing laws rather than creating new ones through judicial fiat.