In Oberteuffer & Another v. Robertson, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was between the plaintiffs, Oberteuffer & Another, and the defendant, Robertson. The plaintiffs had agreed to pay the defendant a certain sum of money in exchange for the defendant's promise to perform certain services. The defendant had failed to perform the services as promised, and the plaintiffs sought to recover the money they had paid. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that the parties had exchanged something of value in order to enter into the agreement. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of mutuality, meaning that both parties had agreed to the same terms and conditions. Finally, the Court held that the defendant had breached the contract by failing to perform the services as promised, and the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the money they had paid.

In Oberteuffer & Another v. Robertson, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The majority opinion found that the contract in question did not meet all of the requirements for it to be legally binding, as there had been no consideration given by either party when entering into it. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that consideration should not be necessary for an agreement to be considered valid and enforceable under law. He argued that if one party has promised something in exchange for another's promise or performance, then both parties have provided sufficient consideration to make their agreement binding even without any money changing hands. Furthermore, he noted that courts should respect contracts made between individuals unless they are clearly invalid due to fraud or other circumstances outside of their control.