In Merrell v. Tice, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was enforceable. The contract in question was between Merrell and Tice, and it stated that Merrell would pay Tice a certain amount of money if Tice could prove that he had a valid claim against the United States government. The Supreme Court held that the contract was enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid because it was not against public policy and because it was not in violation of any law. The Court also noted that the contract was not a gambling contract, as it did not involve any chance or speculation. The Court also held that the contract was binding on both parties. The Court noted that the contract was not voidable because it was not against public policy, and that both parties had agreed to the terms of the contract. The Court also noted that the contract was not unenforceable because it was not against public policy. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Merrell and Tice was enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was valid, binding, and not against public policy. The Court also noted that the contract was not a gambling contract, and that both parties had agreed to the terms of the contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Merrell v. Tice, arguing that the majority had failed to consider a key point of law. He argued that under California's Civil Code, when two parties enter into an agreement and one party fails to fulfill their obligations as outlined in the contract, then they are liable for damages incurred by the other party due to this breach of contract. In this case, he argued that since Tice had not fulfilled his obligation under the contract with Merrell and thus was liable for any damages caused by his failure to do so. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if there were no express terms or conditions stated in writing between them at all - which he believed there were - it would still be possible for a court of equity (which is what this case was) to imply certain duties from such agreements based on past practices and customs within similar industries or trades. Therefore, according to him it should have been up to a jury trial rather than summary judgment whether or not Tice was actually responsible for any losses suffered by Merrell due his non-performance on their agreement; something which could only be determined after hearing both sides' evidence presented before them during said trial process.