Hartshorn v. Saginaw Barrel Company was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The plaintiff, Hartshorn, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Saginaw Barrel Company, to purchase a certain number of barrels. Hartshorn paid for the barrels in advance, but the defendant failed to deliver them. Hartshorn then sued the defendant for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between the parties was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the performance of the other. The Court also noted that the contract was not illegal or against public policy. Therefore, the Court held that Hartshorn was entitled to damages for the defendant's breach of contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hartsorn v. Saginaw Barrel Company, arguing that the majority's decision was wrong and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding on both of them, regardless of whether one party has knowledge or not of any defect in the goods being sold. Furthermore, he stated that if there had been an express warranty given by either party to the other regarding quality or condition of goods then it would have been enforceable as part of their agreement; however, since no such warranty existed here then neither party could rely upon it for protection from breach-of-contract claims. Finally Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating that while courts may sometimes imply warranties when none are expressed they must do so cautiously and only after considering all relevant facts before making a determination about liability for damages due to breach-of-contract claims.