COPE v. VALLETTE DRY DOCK COMPANY was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The plaintiff, Cope, had contracted with the defendant, Vallette Dry Dock Company, to build a vessel for him. Cope paid a portion of the contract price in advance, but the vessel was never completed. Cope then sued Vallette for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between the parties was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, as Cope had paid a portion of the contract price in advance. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of mutuality of obligation, as Cope had an obligation to pay the remaining portion of the contract price upon completion of the vessel. The Court also held that Cope was entitled to damages for breach of contract. The Court found that Cope was entitled to recover the amount of money he had paid in advance, as well as any additional damages he had suffered as a result of the breach. The Court also held that Cope was entitled to recover the cost of completing the vessel, as well as any other costs he had incurred in attempting to complete the vessel. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Cope and Vallette was valid and enforceable, and that Cope was entitled to damages for breach of contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Cope v. Vallette Dry Dock Company, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to an unjust result. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms unless there is some legal reason why it cannot be enforced. In this case, he argued, there was no such legal impediment; therefore, the contract should have been enforced as written. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that if the court had applied existing law correctly then Cope would have been entitled to damages for breach of contract instead of being denied any relief whatsoever by virtue of his own negligence in failing to perform under the agreement. Finally, Justice Field concluded by noting that while courts may not always agree with contracts made between private individuals they must still enforce them when appropriate or risk undermining public confidence in their ability and willingness to do justice fairly and impartially without regard for personal interests or sympathies.