Flanders v. Seelye was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between the plaintiff, Flanders, and the defendant, Seelye, in which Flanders agreed to pay Seelye a certain amount of money for the use of a certain piece of property. Seelye had previously agreed to sell the property to Flanders, but the sale had not yet been completed. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Flanders and Seelye was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was binding because it was made in good faith and with the intention of being performed. The Court also noted that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the performance of the contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Flanders and Seelye was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was binding because it was made in good faith and with the intention of being performed, and it was supported by consideration. This decision established that contracts between two parties can be valid and enforceable even if the sale of the property has not yet been completed.

In Flanders v. Seelye, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration and in violation of a state statute. The majority opinion held that the contract was unenforceable because it violated public policy as expressed by the state legislature. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that while contracts made in violation of statutes should not generally be enforced, there were exceptions to this rule if both parties acted in good faith and no third party would suffer any harm or prejudice from enforcing such an agreement. He argued that since neither party had acted fraudulently or maliciously and no one else would have been harmed by upholding their agreement, justice demanded its enforcement despite its lack of consideration and statutory infirmity.