Eureka Company v. Bailey Company was a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1870. The case involved a dispute between two companies over a contract for the sale of goods. Eureka Company had contracted with Bailey Company to purchase a large quantity of goods, but Bailey Company failed to deliver the goods as promised. Eureka Company then sued Bailey Company for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Bailey Company was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that Bailey Company had failed to fulfill its contractual obligations and had not provided any valid excuse for its failure to do so. The Court also held that Eureka Company was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court's decision in this case established the principle that a party to a contract must fulfill its obligations or face legal consequences. This case also established the principle that a party to a contract may be held liable for damages if it fails to fulfill its contractual obligations. This case is still cited today as an example of the importance of fulfilling contractual obligations.

In Eureka Company v. Bailey Company, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two companies could be enforced when it had been made without consideration of any kind. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable because they lacked consideration and did not meet the requirements for an exception to this rule. Justice Field dissented from this ruling, arguing that while there may have been no direct exchange of value in making the contract, both parties still received something beneficial from it - namely security and protection against future losses or damages resulting from their respective obligations under the agreement. He further argued that if courts refused to recognize these types of agreements as valid contracts then businesses would suffer greatly due to lack of trust among them; thus, he concluded that such agreements should be considered binding even though they are lacking in formal considerations normally required for a legally-enforceable contract.