In Cunard Steamship Company v. Carey, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between a steamship company and a passenger was valid. The passenger, Carey, had purchased a ticket from the steamship company, Cunard, for a voyage from New York to Liverpool. The ticket contained a clause that stated that the steamship company was not liable for any loss or damage to the passenger’s baggage. Carey’s baggage was lost during the voyage, and he sued the steamship company for damages. The Supreme Court held that the contract between the steamship company and the passenger was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the clause in the ticket was clear and unambiguous, and that the passenger had agreed to the terms of the contract when he purchased the ticket. The Court also held that the steamship company was not liable for the loss of the passenger’s baggage, as the contract clearly stated that the steamship company was not liable for any loss or damage to the passenger’s baggage.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Cunard Steamship Company v. Carey, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to unjust results. He argued that a contract of affreightment is not an ordinary maritime contract, but rather one which creates a special relationship between shipper and carrier with certain implied obligations on both sides. In this case, he noted that there had been no breach of any obligation by either party; therefore it was inappropriate for the court to impose liability upon either side without proof of fault or negligence. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that even if there had been some degree of fault on behalf of the steamship company in failing to provide timely notice as required by law, such failure should have only resulted in damages being reduced proportionately according to their relative degrees of fault - not absolving them from all responsibility as held by the majority opinion.