Oelbermann v. Merritt 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 Oelbermann and Merritt, in which Oelbermann agreed to pay Merritt a certain sum of money in exchange for Merritt's services. The contract was signed by both parties, but Merritt later refused to perform the services he had agreed to. Oelbermann then sued Merritt for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Oelbermann and Merritt was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was signed by both parties, and that Merritt had accepted the consideration offered by Oelbermann. The Court also noted that Merritt had not raised any defenses to the contract, such as fraud or duress. Therefore, the Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Merritt was liable for breach of contract.

In Oelbermann v. Merritt, the United States Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a contract between two parties that had been partially performed could be enforced by one of them against the other. The majority opinion held that it could not, as there was no consideration for either party to enforce such an agreement. Justice Field dissented from this ruling and argued that partial performance should constitute sufficient consideration to make an otherwise unenforceable contract valid and binding on both parties. He reasoned that when a person has already expended time or money in reliance upon another's promise, they have provided something of value which can serve as adequate consideration for enforcing the agreement even if it is incompletely executed at the time of enforcement.