Durant v. Essex Company was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a corporation can be held liable for the actions of its officers. The case involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Durant, and the defendant, the Essex Company. Durant had purchased a large quantity of goods from the Essex Company, but the company failed to deliver the goods as promised. Durant sued the company for breach of contract, but the company argued that it could not be held liable for the actions of its officers. The Supreme Court held that the company could be held liable for the actions of its officers. The Court reasoned that the company had authorized the officers to enter into the contract with Durant, and thus the company was responsible for the officers' actions. The Court also noted that the company had received the benefit of the contract, and thus it was only fair that it should be held liable for any breach of contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the Essex Company could be held liable for the actions of its officers. The Court reasoned that the company had authorized the officers to enter into the contract with Durant, and thus the company was responsible for the officers' actions. The Court also noted that the company had received the benefit of the contract, and thus it was only fair that it should be held liable for any breach of contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Durant v. Essex Company, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to unjust results. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms unless there is some legal reason why it cannot be so enforced. In this case, he noted that there was no evidence of fraud or mistake on either side; therefore, both parties had agreed upon certain conditions which they expected would govern their relationship going forward. The majority's ruling overturned these expectations by allowing one party (the defendant) to unilaterally modify those conditions without any consideration from the other party (the plaintiff). This result could not have been intended by either party when entering into the agreement and Justice Field felt it necessary for courts to respect contracts as written rather than allow them to be modified at will after formation.