In Charles Bliven and Edward B. Mead v. The New England Screw Company, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case involving breach of contract between two parties. Plaintiffs in error, Bliven and Mead, had entered into an agreement with defendant company to purchase screws for $1 per pound but were only given half that amount upon delivery due to alleged defects in quality. The plaintiffs argued that they should be compensated for their losses as a result of this breach of contract while the defendants maintained that no damages could be awarded since there was no evidence proving any actual loss on behalf of either party involved in the transaction. After considering both sides’ arguments, the court ultimately ruled against awarding damages to either side due to lack of sufficient proof regarding any financial harm suffered by either party from this incident.

In the dissenting opinion of Charles Bliven and Edward B. Mead v. The New England Screw Company, Justice Curtis argued that the Court should have reversed the judgment of the lower court because it was based on an erroneous interpretation of a contract between Bliven and Mead and The New England Screw Company. He believed that under Massachusetts law, which governed this case, there were two separate contracts: one for goods sold by Bliven to Mead (which had been fully performed) and another for services rendered by them both in selling those goods (for which they sought compensation). According to Justice Curtis, since these two contracts were distinct from each other, any breach or failure to perform either would not affect performance on the other; thus he concluded that even if there had been a breach with respect to one contract it did not necessarily mean that all claims arising out of both contracts must be dismissed as well.