In Fuller et al. v. Claflin et al., 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, Fuller and others, and the defendants, Claflin and others. The plaintiffs had agreed to sell the defendants a large quantity of cotton at a certain price. The defendants had agreed to pay the plaintiffs the agreed-upon price for the cotton. However, the defendants had failed to pay the plaintiffs the agreed-upon price. The plaintiffs then sued the defendants 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, meaning that each party had given something of value in exchange for the other's promise. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of mutuality, meaning that both parties had agreed to the same terms and conditions. Finally, the Court held that the defendants had breached the contract by failing to pay the agreed-upon price for the cotton. As a result, the Court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiffs the agreed-upon price for the cotton.

In Fuller et al. v. Claflin et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties, in which one party agreed to pay the other for certain services rendered, could be enforced by law if it had not been written down and signed by both parties. The majority opinion held that such an agreement could not be enforced because it lacked sufficient evidence of its existence or terms; however, Justice Field dissented from this decision on the grounds that there were enough facts present in this case to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a valid contract existed between the two parties. He argued that oral contracts should still be considered legally binding when they are supported by circumstantial evidence such as testimony from witnesses who heard discussions about them or payments made pursuant to their terms. Furthermore, he believed that enforcing these agreements would help protect individuals against fraud and injustice since they often lack access to legal counsel or knowledge of how best to document their contractual arrangements with others.