Crescent Brewing Co. v. Gottfried was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1925. The case involved a dispute between Crescent Brewing Company and Gottfried, a former employee of the company. Gottfried had been employed by Crescent Brewing Company for several years and had been promised a bonus if he stayed with the company for a certain period of time. When Gottfried left the company before the end of the period, Crescent Brewing Company sued him for breach of contract. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gottfried, finding that the bonus was not a binding contract. The Court held that the bonus was an offer of additional compensation, not a binding contract. The Court also found that the bonus was not an enforceable promise because it was not supported by consideration. The Court noted that Gottfried had already been paid for his services and that the bonus was not a part of his original employment agreement. The Court's decision in Crescent Brewing Co. v. Gottfried established that an offer of additional compensation is not a binding contract unless it is supported by consideration. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving offers of additional compensation.

In the dissenting opinion of Crescent Brewing Co. v. Gottfried, Justice Cardozo argued that the plaintiff was not entitled to damages for breach of contract because they had failed to prove any actual loss or damage suffered as a result of the defendant's actions. He noted that while there may have been some inconvenience caused by the delay in delivery, this did not amount to an actionable injury and thus could not be compensated through damages awarded by a court. Furthermore, he argued that even if it were possible for such damages to be recovered under these circumstances, they should only be given when "the wrongdoer has acted with knowledge or notice" which was lacking here since no evidence had been presented indicating that Gottfried knew his conduct would cause harm or disruption to Crescent Brewing Co.'s business operations. As such, Justice Cardozo concluded that awarding damages in this case would set a dangerous precedent and urged his colleagues on the Court to reject them accordingly.