Oelrichs v. Williams was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1875. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Oelrichs, had contracted to purchase the steamboat from the defendant, Williams, for a certain sum of money. However, Williams refused to deliver the steamboat, claiming that the contract was invalid because it had not been signed by both parties. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable, despite the fact that it had not been signed by both parties. The Court reasoned that the contract was binding because it had been accepted by both parties, and that the lack of a signature was not a material defect. The Court also noted that the contract had been partially performed, and that the parties had acted in reliance on the contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Williams was obligated to deliver the steamboat to Oelrichs. The Court's decision established that a contract can be valid and enforceable even if it is not signed by both parties.

In Oelrichs v. Williams, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The majority opinion held that the contract in question was not legally binding due to its lack of consideration; however, Justice Field dissented from this decision. He argued that while there may have been no express consideration for the agreement, it could still be enforced based on an implied promise by both parties to perform their respective obligations under it. Furthermore, he noted that if one party had already performed their part of the bargain then they should be able to recover damages from any breach by another party as well as specific performance of any remaining terms in order to prevent injustice or hardship upon them. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that even though there may have been no explicit consideration given for a contract between two parties does not necessarily mean it is unenforceable and thus urged his fellow justices to reconsider their ruling accordingly.