In Cooper & Co. v. Coates & Co, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The case involved a contract between Cooper & Co. and Coates & Co. for the sale of a shipment of cotton. Cooper & Co. had agreed to sell the cotton to Coates & Co. for a certain price, but Coates & Co. refused to pay the agreed-upon price. Cooper & Co. then sued Coates & Co. for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between the two parties was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that each party had given something of value in exchange for the other's promise. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of mutuality, meaning that both parties had agreed to the same terms and conditions. The Court ultimately held that Cooper & Co. was entitled to recover the agreed-upon price from Coates & Co. for the shipment of cotton. The Court's decision established that contracts between two parties are valid and enforceable when supported by consideration and mutuality.

In Cooper & Co. v. Coates & Co., the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties, which had been made in England and involved English law, should be enforced by an American court. The majority opinion held that the contract could not be enforced because it violated public policy of both countries; however, Justice Field dissented from this decision on the basis that there was no evidence to suggest that either country's public policy would have been violated if the contract were enforced. He argued that since neither party had any knowledge of what constituted "public policy" at the time they entered into their agreement, then enforcing it would not violate either nation's laws or policies as they existed at present. Furthermore, he noted that even if one did assume such knowledge existed when entering into a foreign agreement like this one, then still there is nothing to indicate any violation of public policy occurred here due to lack of proof presented by either side regarding what those policies actually are or were at the time in question.