In Follansbee v. Ballard Paving Company, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The plaintiff, Follansbee, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Ballard Paving Company, to construct a road. The contract provided that the defendant would pay the plaintiff a certain amount of money for the work. However, the defendant failed to pay the plaintiff the full amount due under the contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that the parties had agreed to its terms. The Court also noted that the defendant had accepted the contract and had begun to perform its obligations under the contract. Therefore, the Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that the plaintiff was entitled to the full amount due under the contract.

Justice Harlan delivered the dissenting opinion in Follansbee v. Ballard Paving Company, arguing that the majority had erred in their interpretation of a contract between two parties. He argued that under the terms of the contract, Follansbee was entitled to receive payment for his services regardless of whether he completed all work required by Ballard Paving Company or not. According to Justice Harlan, it was clear from both parties' intent and language used in their agreement that they intended for Follansbee to be paid even if he did not complete all tasks assigned by Ballard Paving Company. Furthermore, Justice Harlan noted that there were no conditions specified within the contract which would have allowed Ballard Paving Company to withhold payment from Follansbee should he fail to fulfill certain requirements as set forth by them; thus making any such withholding unlawful and unjustified according to him. In conclusion, Justice Harlan believed that since there were no provisions within the contract allowing for non-payment due to incomplete performance on behalf of either party then it must be assumed that both parties agreed upon full compensation being provided regardless of completion status - something which had been denied here by a majority decision contrary with this understanding