Krippendorf v. Hyde & Another was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a party could be held liable for a breach of contract when the contract was not in writing. The case involved two parties, Krippendorf and Hyde & Another. Krippendorf had entered into an oral agreement with Hyde & Another to purchase a certain amount of goods. Krippendorf paid for the goods, but Hyde & Another failed to deliver them. Krippendorf then sued Hyde & Another for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Krippendorf could not be held liable for breach of contract because the contract was not in writing. The Court reasoned that, under the Statute of Frauds, contracts must be in writing in order to be enforceable. The Court also noted that, even if the contract had been in writing, Krippendorf would still not have been liable because the Statute of Frauds requires that contracts for the sale of goods must be in writing and signed by the party to be charged. The Court's decision in Krippendorf v. Hyde & Another established that, in order for a contract to be enforceable, it must be in writing and signed by the party to be charged. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and is still good law today.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Krippendorf v. Hyde & Another, 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 He argued that a contract between two parties is binding on both of them unless it has been modified or rescinded by mutual agreement or some other legal means. In this case, he asserted, there had been no such modification or rescission; therefore, the contract remained valid and enforceable against both parties. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if one party to a contract breaches its terms - as Hyde did here - the other party may still sue for damages resulting from such breach without first having to prove any actual damage suffered due to it. As such, he concluded that Krippendorf was entitled to recover damages from Hyde for his breach of their original agreement regardless of whether any actual harm had occurred as a result thereof.