Klein v. Hoffheimer was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1891. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a piece of real estate. The plaintiff, Klein, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Hoffheimer, to purchase a piece of real estate. The contract stated that the purchase price was to be paid in installments, with the first installment due at the time of the signing of the contract. Klein paid the first installment, but Hoffheimer refused to accept the remaining payments. Klein then sued Hoffheimer for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Hoffheimer was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that Hoffheimer had accepted the first installment of the purchase price, and that this acceptance constituted a binding contract between the parties. The Court also held that Hoffheimer had breached the contract by refusing to accept the remaining payments. As a result, the Court ordered Hoffheimer to pay Klein the remaining balance of the purchase price. Klein v. Hoffheimer is an important case in contract law. It established that a contract can be formed even if only one party has paid the purchase price. It also established that a party who has accepted a payment in accordance with a contract is liable for breach of contract if they refuse to accept the remaining payments.

In the case of Klein v. Hoffheimer, Justice Holmes wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrong and should be overturned. He believed that the contract between Mr. Klein and Mr. Hoffheimer did not give either party an absolute right to terminate it at any time without cause or notice, as had been decided by the majority opinion. Instead, he argued that there were certain conditions under which termination could occur - namely when one party breached their obligations under the agreement or failed to perform them properly - but these conditions had not been met in this particular case so neither party had a legal right to end it unilaterally without consequence for doing so. Furthermore, Justice Holmes asserted that even if such a condition existed within this contract then both parties would have needed to agree on its terms before they could be enforced against either of them; since no such agreement was present here then neither side should suffer from its absence either way and thusly no damages should have been awarded against Mr. Klein for his actions in terminating their arrangement prematurely according to him anyway