Frisbie v. Whitney was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of a contract between two parties. The plaintiff, Frisbie, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Whitney, to purchase a certain amount of land. Frisbie had paid the full amount of the purchase price, but Whitney refused to convey the land to Frisbie. Frisbie then brought suit against Whitney for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between the parties was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, and that the parties had entered into the contract in good faith. The Court also held that Whitney was liable for breach of contract, and that Frisbie was entitled to damages for the breach. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Frisbie and Whitney was valid and enforceable, and that Whitney was liable for breach of contract. The Court awarded damages to Frisbie for the breach.

In Frisbie v. Whitney, the Supreme Court was asked to decide 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 should not be enforced because it violated public policy by circumventing an existing law. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on the grounds that contracts are generally enforceable unless they violate some positive law or public policy; since there was no such violation here, he argued that the court should have allowed enforcement of the agreement as written. He further noted that if courts were to refuse enforcement of all agreements made without consideration and in violation of statutes then many innocent individuals would suffer unjustly for actions taken with good faith intentions but which happened to conflict with existing laws.