John L. McCracken brought a case against Charles Hayward to the Supreme Court of the United States in 1844. The dispute arose from an agreement between them that McCracken would pay Hayward $1,000 for certain lands and buildings located in New York City. However, when it came time to make payment, McCracken refused on the grounds that he had been misled by Hayward regarding some of the details surrounding their agreement. In response, Hayward sued him for breach of contract and was awarded damages by a lower court. On appeal to the Supreme Court, however, Justice John McLean found that there were sufficient facts presented at trial which could have led a jury to conclude that both parties had acted negligently or with fraud; thus overturning the decision made by lower courts and ruling in favor of McCracken's claim against Hayward for breach of contract due to misrepresentation or mistake on his part as well as Haywards'.

In the case of John L. McCracken v Charles Hayward, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written and not interpreted by courts to mean something different than what was agreed upon. The majority had ruled that Hayward could recover damages from McCracken for breach of contract even though he had failed to fulfill his part of the agreement first. The dissent disagreed with this ruling, arguing that it would lead to an unjust result in which one party is allowed to benefit from their own failure while punishing another who has done nothing wrong. They further argued that such a decision would set a dangerous precedent whereby contracts are no longer binding because they can be reinterpreted at any time by judges according to their own whims or interpretations rather than being held up as written agreements between two parties.