Dobson & Another v. Hartford Carpet Company 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 the Hartford Carpet Company and two of its customers, Dobson & Another. The customers had purchased carpets from the company and had paid for them in full. However, the company refused to deliver the carpets, claiming that the contract was invalid because it had not been signed by the company's president. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the company had accepted the customers' payment and had acted in a manner that indicated its acceptance of the contract. The Court also noted that the company had not raised any objections to the contract until after the customers had paid for the carpets. Therefore, the Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court's decision in this case established that a contract does not need to be signed by both parties in order to be valid and enforceable. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has become an important part of contract law in the United States.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Dobson & Another v. Hartford Carpet Company, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding on both of them, regardless of whether one party has received any benefit from it or not. Furthermore, he stated that if a party to a contract fails to perform their obligations under it, they are liable for damages resulting from such failure even if there is no proof of actual damage suffered by the other party as a result. In this case specifically, Justice Field believed that since Dobson had failed to fulfill his contractual obligation with Hartford Carpet Company by failing to deliver goods within an agreed-upon time frame without good cause or excuse for doing so, he should be held liable for damages caused by his breach of contract despite there being no evidence presented showing what those damages were exactly.