Mitchell v. Hawley was a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1872. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Mitchell, had contracted with the defendant, Hawley, to purchase a steamboat for $2,000. Hawley had agreed to deliver the boat to Mitchell, but failed to do so. Mitchell then sued Hawley for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Hawley was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that Hawley had failed to fulfill his contractual obligations and that Mitchell was entitled to damages. The Court also held that Mitchell was entitled to recover the full amount of the contract price, plus interest, as damages for the breach. The Court's decision in Mitchell v. Hawley established the principle that a party who breaches a contract is liable for the full amount of the contract price, plus interest, as damages. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then and is still used today.

In Mitchell v. Hawley, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties should be enforced when one of them had been misled by false representations made by the other party. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable because they lacked mutual assent and consideration; however, Justice Field dissented from this decision. He argued that while it may have been wrong for one party to make false statements in order to induce another into entering into an agreement, there was still a valid contract between them which should be enforced according to its terms. Furthermore, he believed that allowing courts to void contracts based on misrepresentations would create uncertainty in commercial transactions and could lead people who are unaware of their rights under the law being taken advantage of without any recourse or protection against fraudsters.