Dewing v. Sears was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a dispute between a buyer and seller of a piece of property. The buyer, Dewing, had agreed to purchase the property from Sears for a certain amount of money. However, Sears later refused to accept the payment and refused to transfer the deed to the property to Dewing. Dewing then sued Sears 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 both parties had given something of value in exchange for the property. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, meaning that the consideration given by both parties was sufficient to make the contract valid. The Court also held that Sears was liable for breach of contract and ordered Sears to transfer the deed to the property to Dewing. This case established that contracts between two parties are valid and enforceable, and that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages.

In Dewing v. Sears, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced despite one party's failure to fulfill their obligations under the agreement. The majority opinion held that since there had been no consideration given by either party in exchange for performance of the contract, it was unenforceable and thus not binding on either side. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling and argued that consideration should not be necessary when enforcing contracts as long as both parties have agreed to its terms in good faith. He further noted that if such an interpretation were adopted, then courts would have more flexibility in deciding cases involving contractual disputes without having to rely solely on considerations of fairness or equity. Ultimately, his dissent went unheard and the majority opinion stood; however his arguments remain relevant today when considering how best to interpret contracts between two parties who may not necessarily have provided any tangible form of compensation for services rendered or goods exchanged.