Clough v. Manufacturing Company was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1882. The case involved a dispute between a manufacturer and a customer over the quality of goods purchased. The customer, Clough, had purchased a large quantity of goods from the manufacturer, but upon delivery, Clough found that the goods were of inferior quality. Clough refused to pay for the goods and the manufacturer sued for the full amount. The Supreme Court held that the manufacturer was not entitled to the full amount of the purchase price. The Court found that the manufacturer had breached its contract with Clough by delivering goods of inferior quality. The Court held that Clough was only obligated to pay for the goods that were of the quality promised in the contract. The Court also held that Clough was entitled to damages for the difference in value between the goods promised and the goods delivered. The Court's decision in Clough v. Manufacturing Company established the principle that a customer is not obligated to pay for goods that are of inferior quality. The Court's decision also established the principle that a customer is entitled to damages for the difference in value between the goods promised and the goods delivered.

In the case of Clough v. Manufacturing Company, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had misinterpreted an earlier decision by the Supreme Court and failed to consider important facts presented in this particular case. He noted that while it was true that a contract could be modified or changed if both parties agreed to do so, there were certain exceptions where such changes would not be allowed. In this instance, he believed that since Mr. Clough had already performed his part of the agreement and received payment for his services, any modification should have been made before those payments were made rather than after they had already been completed. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that even if one party did agree to modify their contract with another party without receiving additional compensation for doing so, then it should only apply prospectively and not retroactively as was being proposed here by the majority opinion.