Corbin v. Gould was a Supreme Court case from 1881 that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between Corbin and Gould, in which Corbin agreed to pay Gould a certain amount of money for the sale of a piece of land. Gould had already paid Corbin a portion of the money, but Corbin refused to accept the remaining payment. Gould then sued Corbin for breach of contract. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gould, finding that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court held that the contract was binding and that Corbin was obligated to accept the remaining payment. The Court also held that the contract was not voidable due to any lack of consideration, as the parties had already exchanged money for the land. The Court's decision in Corbin v. Gould established the principle that a contract is binding and enforceable if it is supported by consideration, even if the consideration is not equal in value. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and is still used today to determine the validity of contracts.

In the Supreme Court case of Corbin v. Gould, Justice Harlan delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority’s decision was wrongfully based on an overly narrow interpretation of the contract between Corbin and Gould. According to Harlan, although it is true that there were no express terms in the agreement regarding how long either party had to perform their obligations under it, this does not mean that such time limits did not exist implicitly within its language. He further argued that if one looks at all relevant facts surrounding the formation of this contract – including prior negotiations between both parties and industry custom – then it becomes clear that reasonable expectations existed as to when each side should have fulfilled their contractual duties; thus implying a certain amount of temporal flexibility for performance by both sides. In conclusion, Justice Harlan believed that since these implied conditions were violated by Gould due to his unreasonable delay in performing his part of the bargain, Corbin should be allowed relief from damages caused by said breach.