McAllister v. Kuhn was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between McAllister and Kuhn, in which McAllister agreed to pay Kuhn a certain amount of money for the sale of a horse. McAllister later refused to pay the amount due, claiming that the contract was invalid because it had not been properly executed. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid because it had been made in good faith and with consideration. The Court also noted that the parties had acted in a manner that indicated their intention to be bound by the contract. Furthermore, the Court held that the contract was not invalidated by the fact that it had not been properly executed. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between McAllister and Kuhn was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract had been made in good faith and with consideration, and that the parties had acted in a manner that indicated their intention to be bound by the contract. Furthermore, the Court held that the contract was not invalidated by the fact that it had not been properly executed.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in McAllister v. Kuhn, arguing that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms and conditions as agreed upon by both parties. He argued that if one party was allowed to breach their agreement without consequence, it would undermine the sanctity of contracts and create an environment where agreements could not be relied upon or trusted. Furthermore, he noted that while courts may have discretion when interpreting certain ambiguous language within a contract, they should not use this power to rewrite or modify the terms of an agreement which is clear on its face. In conclusion Justice Field stated his belief that since there was no ambiguity present in this case regarding either party's obligations under their contract, it should have been enforced as written rather than allowing one side to escape liability for breaching it.