In Minneapolis Association v. Canfield, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between a Minneapolis association and a real estate developer was valid. The association had agreed to purchase a large tract of land from the developer, but the developer later refused to sell the land. The association sued, claiming that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the agreement. The Court also found that the contract was not against public policy, as it did not involve any illegal activity. Finally, the Court held that the contract was not too vague or uncertain to be enforced. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that the association was entitled to the land as promised in the contract. The Court ordered the developer to transfer the land to the association.

In Minneapolis Association v. Canfield, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when one of them had died before it was performed. The majority opinion held that the contract could not be enforced because it did not meet certain requirements for contracts made with deceased persons under Minnesota law. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that there were no such legal requirements in place at the time of the agreement and thus they should not apply retroactively to invalidate an otherwise valid contract. He further argued that even if these rules existed, they would only apply prospectively and therefore should have no bearing on this case since both parties agreed to their terms prior to any such laws being enacted or established by precedent. In conclusion, he believed that enforcing this particular agreement would serve as a fair resolution for all involved parties given its circumstances and history