In the case of Market Company v. Hoffman, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The plaintiff, Market Company, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Hoffman, to purchase a certain quantity of goods. Hoffman had agreed to deliver the goods to Market Company, but failed to do so. Market Company then sued Hoffman for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between the parties was valid and enforceable. The Court found that Hoffman had agreed to deliver the goods to Market Company and that Market Company had a right to expect performance of the contract. The Court also held that Hoffman was liable for damages for breach of contract. The Court's decision in this case established that contracts between two parties are binding and enforceable. It also established that a party who fails to perform their obligations under a contract is liable for damages. This case is an important precedent in contract law and has been cited in numerous other cases.

In Market Company v. Hoffman, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration and in violation of a state statute. The majority opinion held that the contract was not enforceable because it lacked consideration and violated the law. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that there were sufficient facts present to support enforcement of the agreement despite its lack of consideration or statutory violations. He argued that if one party had already performed their part of an agreement then they should still receive what is due them under equitable principles even if no legal obligation existed for either side at the time they entered into their bargain. Furthermore, he noted that courts have traditionally refused to allow statutes which are intended only as remedial measures to be used against those who acted in good faith prior to enactment of such laws; thus, he concluded that enforcing this particular contract would not violate public policy nor any existing law since both parties acted with good intentions before entering into their agreement