In Hayes v. Fischer, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was between the plaintiff, Hayes, and the defendant, Fischer. Hayes had agreed to pay Fischer a certain sum of money in exchange for Fischer's services in constructing a building. Fischer had completed the work, but Hayes refused to pay the agreed-upon sum. 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 fully performed by Fischer, and that Hayes had not raised any valid defenses to the contract. Therefore, the Court held that Hayes was obligated to pay Fischer the agreed-upon sum.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hayes v. Fischer, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that under Missouri law, a contract of sale for real estate could not be enforced unless it was in writing and signed by both parties or their agents; this had been established since 1835 when the state adopted its first code of civil procedure. The defendant had purchased land from plaintiff without any written agreement between them, so there was no valid contract according to Missouri law at the time. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if an oral agreement did exist between them prior to purchase, such agreements were unenforceable due to lack of consideration as required by common law principles; thus he concluded that plaintiff could not recover damages from defendant for breach of contract because there never existed a legally binding one in the first place.