In Edwards v. Kearzey, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was between a husband and wife, and it provided that the husband would pay the wife a certain sum of money each month for the rest of her life. The husband had failed to make the payments, and the wife sued to enforce the contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was not against public policy, and that it was not contrary to any law or statute. The Court also noted that the contract was not unconscionable, and that it was not against the interests of either party. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that the wife was entitled to the payments she was promised.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Edwards v. Kearzey, arguing that the majority had misconstrued the meaning of a contract between two parties and thus failed to properly apply existing law. He argued that under established legal principles, when an agreement is made with reference to certain facts or circumstances which do not exist at the time of making it, then those facts or circumstances must be taken into consideration in order for there to be a valid contract. In this case, he argued that since both parties were aware of potential future changes in land ownership when they entered into their agreement – specifically concerning who owned what portion of property adjacent to theirs – these changes should have been taken into account by the court before ruling on whether or not there was a breach of contract. Thus, Justice Field concluded that because such considerations were ignored by his colleagues on the bench, their decision was wrong and should be reversed.