In the case of Marchand v. Frelssen, 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 a ship captain, Marchand, and a passenger, Frelssen. Marchand had agreed to transport Frelssen from one port to another, and in exchange, Frelssen had agreed to pay Marchand a certain sum of money. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was made in good faith and that both parties had agreed to the terms of the contract. Furthermore, the Court held that the contract was not against public policy and that it was not unconscionable. The Court also held that Marchand was entitled to damages for breach of contract. The Court noted that Frelssen had failed to pay the agreed-upon sum of money and that Marchand had suffered a financial loss as a result. The Court ordered Frelssen to pay Marchand the amount of money that was agreed upon in the contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Marchand and Frelssen was valid and enforceable and that Marchand was entitled to damages for breach of contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Marchand v. Frelssen, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding on both of them, regardless of whether one party had knowledge or not about certain facts related to it. In this case, he believed that the defendant had agreed to pay for goods received from plaintiff without any condition attached regarding his knowledge of their quality or value; therefore, Justice Field concluded that defendant was liable for payment as per their agreement. Furthermore, he noted that even if there were conditions attached to the contract which required defendant's knowledge before being bound by it - such conditions would have been waived due to plaintiff's failure to provide notice prior to delivery of goods and thus could not be used as a defense against liability in this case. Ultimately Justice Field disagreed with majority ruling and stated his belief that judgment should have been entered in favor of plaintiff instead