Noyes v. Hal was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between the plaintiff, Noyes, and the defendant, Hal, in which Hal agreed to pay Noyes a certain sum of money in exchange for a certain amount of land. Noyes argued that the contract was valid and enforceable, while Hal argued that the contract was invalid because it was not in writing. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Noyes, ruling that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court held that the contract was binding because it was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the other's promise. The Court also held that the contract was not required to be in writing in order to be valid, as long as the parties had agreed to the terms of the contract and had exchanged something of value. This ruling established that oral contracts can be valid and enforceable, provided that they meet certain requirements.

In Noyes v. Hal, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties had been breached by one of them. The plaintiff, Mr. Noyes, argued that he had entered into an agreement with the defendant to purchase certain real estate for $3200 and that the defendant had failed to fulfill his part of the bargain by not conveying title to him as promised in exchange for payment. The majority opinion found in favor of Mr. Noyes and held that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support a finding of breach on behalf of the defendant; however, Justice Field dissented from this decision arguing that there were insufficient facts provided at trial which would allow for such a conclusion since no deed or other written instrument evidencing transferral of ownership from one party to another was ever produced nor did any witness testify regarding its existence or lack thereof during proceedings before court. He further noted how it seemed unlikely given all circumstances surrounding case that such an agreement could have been made without some form writing being executed between both parties prior thereto thus making it impossible for court make determination based upon what little information available before it as far as who actually owned property in question and if either side truly committed breach under terms alleged therein