Otis v. Oregon Steamship Company was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1886. The case involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Otis, and the defendant, Oregon Steamship Company, over a contract for the transportation of goods. Otis had contracted with the company to transport goods from San Francisco to Portland, Oregon. The contract specified that the goods would be delivered in Portland within a certain time frame. However, the goods were not delivered on time and Otis sued the company for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the company had breached the contract by failing to deliver the goods on time and that Otis was entitled to damages for the breach. The Court also held that the company was liable for any losses suffered by Otis as a result of the breach. The Court further held that the company was not entitled to any damages for any delay in delivery caused by Otis. The Court's decision in Otis v. Oregon Steamship Company established that a contract is binding and enforceable even if the parties do not specify a time frame for performance. The Court also established that a party who breaches a contract is liable for any losses suffered by the other party as a result of the breach.

In Otis v. Oregon Steamship Company, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a stevedore who had been injured while unloading cargo from an ocean-going vessel could sue the ship's owner for damages under admiralty law. The majority of justices held that such suits were not allowed because they would interfere with maritime commerce and disrupt established customs in port cities. Justice Field dissented, arguing that allowing these types of lawsuits would provide much needed protection to workers on ships and docks, many of whom are vulnerable due to their lack of bargaining power or access to legal remedies. He argued further that there is no reason why admiralty law should be used as a shield against liability when it has traditionally been used as a sword by those seeking compensation for injuries suffered at sea or in ports around the world. Finally, he noted that if Congress wanted to protect ship owners from such claims then it should pass legislation explicitly prohibiting them rather than relying on judicial interpretation of existing laws which do not address this issue directly.