In Gray v. Rollo, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was between a shipbuilder, Rollo, and a shipowner, Gray. Rollo had agreed to build a ship for Gray, and Gray had agreed to pay Rollo for the work. However, Gray had failed to make the payments as agreed, and Rollo sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that both parties had agreed to its terms. The Court also noted that the contract had been signed by both parties, and that Gray had accepted the ship upon its completion. Therefore, the Court held that Gray was liable for breach of contract and ordered him to pay Rollo the amount due. The Court's decision in Gray v. Rollo established that contracts are binding and enforceable, and that parties must abide by the terms of the contract. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and it remains an important precedent in contract law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Gray v. Rollo, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding on both of them, regardless of any subsequent changes to state laws or regulations. In this case, he believed that the original agreement between Gray and Rollo should have been enforced as written because it had not been modified by either party since its creation. Furthermore, he noted that even if there were some ambiguity in the language of their contract, it would still be enforceable under established principles of law which require courts to interpret contracts according to their plain meaning rather than attempting to rewrite them based on changing circumstances or public policy considerations. Ultimately Justice Field concluded that while states may pass legislation regulating certain types of agreements such as those involving real estate transactions, they cannot retroactively alter existing contracts without violating due process protections guaranteed by the U.S Constitution