Jones v. Walker was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved two parties, Jones and Walker, who had entered into a contract for the sale of a piece of land. Jones had agreed to pay Walker a certain amount of money for the land, but Walker had failed to deliver the deed to the land. Jones then sued Walker for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Jones and Walker was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the land. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, as Walker had not delivered the deed to the land. The Court held that Jones was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Jones and Walker was valid and enforceable, and that Jones was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court's decision established that consideration is necessary for a contract to be valid and enforceable, and that a contract can be enforced even if one of the parties has not delivered the promised goods.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Jones v. Walker, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established law and precedent. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms, regardless of any subsequent changes in circumstances or conditions which may have occurred since it was entered into. In this case, he noted that there had been no change in circumstances or conditions since the contract was made; therefore, it should be enforced as written. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that if one party were allowed to unilaterally modify an existing agreement without consulting with the other party involved then contracts would become meaningless and unenforceable because they could not be relied upon by either side for their intended purpose - providing security against future events or contingencies. As such, he concluded that allowing one party to alter an existing agreement without consulting with all parties involved would lead to chaos and uncertainty within contractual relationships and ultimately undermine public confidence in them altogether.