In the case of Fay and Others v. Cordesman and Others, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid. The contract in question was between the plaintiffs, Fay and Others, and the defendants, Cordesman and Others. The contract was for the sale of a tract of land in the state of New York. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was made in good faith and that the parties had acted in accordance with the terms of the contract. The Court also found that the contract was not voidable due to any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of either party. The Court also held that the contract was binding on both parties and that the defendants were obligated to pay the purchase price of the land. The Court also held that the plaintiffs were entitled to damages for any breach of the contract by the defendants. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Fay and Others and Cordesman and Others was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was made in good faith and that the parties had acted in accordance with the terms of the contract. The Court also held that the contract was binding on both parties and that the defendants were obligated to pay the purchase price of the land. The Court also held that the plaintiffs were entitled to damages for any breach of the contract by the defendants.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Fay and Others v. Cordesman and Others, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent. He argued that the court had previously held that a contract for personal services could not be assigned without consent of both parties, and thus it should have been determined whether or not there was an agreement between plaintiff and defendant as to such assignment before deciding on its validity. Furthermore, he noted that even if there were no express agreement regarding assignment of contract rights, it would still be necessary to determine whether or not any implied agreement existed between them which would allow for such transferability. Justice Field concluded by stating his belief that this case should have gone back down to lower courts so they could make these determinations instead of ruling on it at Supreme Court level with insufficient evidence presented before them.