In Land Company v. Saunders, 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, a land company, and the defendant, Saunders. The contract stated that the defendant would pay the plaintiff a certain amount of money for a tract of land. The defendant failed to make the payment, and the plaintiff sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that the defendant had agreed to the terms of the contract. The Court also found that the defendant had not raised any defenses to the contract, and that the plaintiff had not waived any of its rights under the contract. The Court concluded that the defendant was liable for breach of contract and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff the amount specified in the contract.

In the case of Land Company v. Saunders, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on an erroneous interpretation of the contract between the parties. He noted that while it is true that contracts are to be interpreted according to their plain language, this does not mean they should be read so literally as to ignore any reasonable implications or inferences from its terms. In this particular case, he believed there were several such implications and inferences which could have been taken into account when interpreting the contract; however, these had been ignored by both lower courts and by his colleagues in their opinions. As such, Justice Field concluded that if those considerations had been given due weight then a different outcome would have resulted - one more favorable for Saunders than what was ultimately decided upon by his fellow justices.