Carpenter v. Dexter was a United States Supreme Court case in 1869. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Carpenter, had contracted with the defendant, Dexter, to purchase a steamboat for $2,000. However, Carpenter failed to make the payment on time and Dexter refused to deliver the boat. Carpenter then sued Dexter for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Carpenter was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court reasoned that Carpenter had a valid contract with Dexter and that Dexter had breached the contract by refusing to deliver the boat. The Court also held that Carpenter was entitled to damages for the breach of contract, which were to be determined by a jury. The Court's decision in Carpenter v. Dexter 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 an important part of contract law today.

In Carpenter v. Dexter, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration and in violation of a state statute. The majority opinion held that the contract was not enforceable because it violated public policy as expressed by the state legislature through its enactment of a statute prohibiting such contracts. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that while he agreed with the majority's conclusion regarding public policy considerations, he believed that there were other factors at play which should have allowed for enforcement of the agreement between Carpenter and Dexter. He argued that since both parties had acted in good faith and relied on each other’s promises to their detriment, they should be able to rely on those promises even if they did violate some law or regulation. Furthermore, Field noted how enforcing these types of agreements would help promote trust among individuals engaging in business transactions; thus allowing them to make decisions based upon mutual reliance rather than fear of legal repercussions for violating statutes or regulations