In Harwood & Another v. Dieckerhoff & Another, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was an agreement between two individuals, Harwood and Dieckerhoff, to purchase a tract of land in California. The agreement stated that Harwood would pay Dieckerhoff $2,000 for the land, and that Dieckerhoff would pay Harwood $1,000 upon the completion of the sale. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the agreement was clear and unambiguous, and that the parties had agreed to the terms of the contract. The Court also noted that the consideration for the contract was sufficient, as Harwood was paying $2,000 for the land and Dieckerhoff was receiving $1,000 upon completion of the sale. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Harwood was entitled to the $1,000 payment from Dieckerhoff upon completion of the sale. The Court also noted that the contract was binding on both parties, and that Dieckerhoff was obligated to fulfill his part of the agreement.

In the case of Harwood & Another v. Dieckerhoff & Another, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made in violation of an existing state law. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable and should not be recognized by courts. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that while states have the right to regulate commerce within their borders, they do not have authority over private contracts between individuals. He further reasoned that if a court refused to recognize validly formed agreements simply because they violated some state regulation or statute then all contractual obligations would become uncertain and unreliable since any agreement could potentially violate some rule or another without either party being aware of it at the time of formation. Therefore he concluded that so long as both parties entered into an agreement voluntarily with full knowledge of its terms then it should remain binding regardless if there is a conflict with some other law on the books.