In Edward M. Livermore and David B. Sexton v Thomas A. Jenckes, Alexander Farnum, and Stephen Waterman, the Supreme Court of the United States had to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid or not. The appellants argued that they had entered into an agreement with the appellees in which they would purchase certain real estate for $2,000; however, when it came time to pay for said property only $1,500 was paid due to a misunderstanding about how much money each party owed under the terms of their agreement. The appellees then refused to accept any further payment from the appellants and instead sought legal action against them for breach of contract as well as damages resulting from such breach of contract. After considering all evidence presented by both sides during trial proceedings at lower courts in Rhode Island where this case originated from ,the US Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Appellants on grounds that there was no clear understanding between parties regarding amount owed under terms set forth within original agreement thus rendering it invalid . This decision established precedent that contracts must be clearly understood by both parties involved before being considered legally binding so as avoid potential disputes over payments or other contractual obligations down line

In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between Edward M. Livermore and David B. Sexton on one side, and Thomas A. Jenckes, Alexander Farnum, and Stephen Waterman on the other side had been breached by the latter three individuals. The dissenting opinion argued that there were no grounds for finding a breach of contract because it could not be proven that any of them had acted in bad faith or with intent to deceive their counterparts into entering into an agreement they would otherwise have refused if fully informed about its terms. Furthermore, even if such evidence existed it would still need to be established that Livermore and Sexton suffered some kind of loss as a result of their counterpart's actions before any damages could be awarded against them; which was not done in this case either. Therefore, according to Justice Grier who wrote the dissent opinion for this case: "The appellants [Livermore & Sexton] are entitled only to nominal damages."