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

Caujolle v. Ferrie was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1871. The case involved a dispute between two French citizens, Caujolle and Ferrie, over a contract for the sale of a ship. Caujolle had agreed to purchase the ship from Ferrie, but Ferrie refused to deliver the ship after Caujolle had paid the agreed-upon price. Caujolle then sued Ferrie for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Caujolle and Ferrie was valid and enforceable under the law of France, where the contract was made. The Court also held that the contract was binding on both parties, and that Ferrie was liable for damages for breach of contract. The Court further held that Caujolle was entitled to recover the purchase price of the ship, as well as damages for the delay in delivery. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that Caujolle was entitled to recover the purchase price of the ship, as well as damages for the delay in delivery, from Ferrie for breach of contract. The Court's decision established that contracts made under the law of a foreign country are enforceable in the United States.
In Caujolle v. Ferrie, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties for the sale of land in Louisiana should be enforced. The majority opinion held that it should not be enforced because it violated public policy and was against good morals. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on the grounds that there is no evidence that enforcing such contracts would violate public policy or morality. He argued that if both parties had agreed to enter into a contract with full knowledge of its terms and conditions then they should have been allowed to do so without interference from the court system. Furthermore, he noted that denying enforcement of such contracts could lead to an increase in litigation as people attempt to avoid their contractual obligations by claiming they are immoral or against public policy when in reality they simply want out of their agreement due to changing circumstances or other reasons unrelated thereto.