In Gay v. Parpart, 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 a husband and wife, and it provided that the husband would pay the wife a certain sum of money each month for the rest of her life. The husband had failed to make the payments, and the wife sued him for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was not against public policy, and that the husband had voluntarily entered into the agreement. The Court also noted that the contract was not unconscionable, and that the wife had not been taken advantage of. The Court held that the husband was liable for breach of contract and ordered him to pay the wife the amount of money specified in the contract. The Court also held that the wife was entitled to interest on the unpaid amount. This case established that contracts between spouses are valid and enforceable, and that spouses are liable for breach of contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Gay v. Parpart, arguing that the majority had erred by failing to consider a key issue of fact: whether or not there was an agreement between the parties as to how much money should be paid for services rendered. He argued that this was a question of fact which could only be determined after hearing evidence from both sides and considering all relevant circumstances. Furthermore, he noted that even if such an agreement did exist, it would still need to be proven in court before any judgment could be made on its validity or enforceability. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that since no determination had been made regarding these issues of fact, the decision should have been remanded back to lower courts for further proceedings rather than being decided by summary judgment at Supreme Court level.