Hansbrough v. Peck was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between Hansbrough and Peck, in which Hansbrough agreed to pay Peck a certain amount of money for a tract of land. Peck had already sold the land to another party, and Hansbrough argued that the contract was invalid because Peck had no right to sell the land. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid, and that Peck had the right to sell the land. The Court reasoned that Peck had the right to sell the land because he had a valid title to the land, and that Hansbrough had the right to enter into the contract because he had knowledge of the title. The Court also held that Hansbrough was not entitled to any damages for breach of contract, as he had not suffered any actual damages. The Court's decision in Hansbrough v. Peck established the principle that a contract is valid if the parties have a valid title to the property in question, and that a party is not entitled to damages for breach of contract if they have not suffered any actual damages. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since, and is still an important part of contract law today.

In the case of Hansbrough v. Peck, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He believed that under the terms of an 1845 contract between Hansbrough and Peck, Hansbrough had been granted exclusive rights to purchase certain land from Peck at any time within five years from its date. The Court held otherwise, ruling that because no specific time for payment had been specified in the agreement, it could not be enforced against Peck after five years had passed since its execution. In his dissent, Justice Field maintained that this interpretation was too narrow; instead he argued that when parties enter into a contract with no explicit provision as to how long it will remain valid or enforceable by either party then they must necessarily imply such an understanding based on reasonable expectations arising out of their relationship with each other. Furthermore, he asserted that if there is evidence showing both parties intended for the agreement to remain valid beyond five years then it should be upheld regardless of whether or not they explicitly stated so in writing at some point during negotiations prior to executing said document.