Dravo v. Fabel is a Supreme Court case from the year 2000. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a boat. The plaintiff, Dravo, was the seller of the boat and the defendant, Fabel, was the buyer. The dispute arose when Fabel failed to make the payments due under the contract. Dravo then sued Fabel for breach of contract. The trial court found in favor of Dravo and awarded damages. Fabel appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the trial court had erred in awarding damages to Dravo. The Court found that the contract between the parties did not provide for damages in the event of a breach. Therefore, the Court held that Dravo was not entitled to damages. The Court also held that the contract between the parties was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the parties had entered into the contract in good faith and that the contract was not unconscionable. Therefore, the Court held that the contract was binding on both parties. The Supreme Court's decision in Dravo v. Fabel is an important case in contract law. The Court's decision established that a contract must provide for damages in the event of a breach in order for the non-breaching party to be entitled to damages. The Court also established that a contract is valid and enforceable if it is entered into in good faith and is not unconscionable.

In the dissenting opinion of Dravo v. Fabel, Justice Cardozo argued that a contract between two parties should be interpreted in accordance with its plain language and not by what one party may have intended or expected from it. He believed that if the court were to interpret contracts based on subjective expectations, then it would open up a Pandora's box of litigation and uncertainty for future cases. Furthermore, he argued that this case was an example of how courts should not interpret contracts because there was no evidence presented as to what either party had actually intended when they entered into the agreement. Therefore, Justice Cardozo concluded that since both parties had agreed upon certain terms within their contract without any ambiguity or dispute over meaning at the time of signing, those terms must stand regardless of any subsequent misunderstandings or disagreements about them.