In the case of Ouachita Packet Company v. Aike, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The plaintiff, Ouachita Packet Company, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Aike, to transport goods from one place to another. The contract stated that the defendant would pay the plaintiff a certain amount of money for the services provided. The defendant argued that the contract was invalid because it was not in writing and was not signed by both parties. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid because it was supported by consideration, which is an exchange of something of value between two parties. The Court also held that the contract was binding because it was made in good faith and with the intention of being enforced. The Court's decision in this case established that a contract does not need to be in writing or signed by both parties in order to be valid and enforceable. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then and has become an important part of contract law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in this case. He argued that the plaintiff, Ouachita Packet Company, was entitled to recover damages for a breach of contract by defendant Aike. The majority had held that there was no consideration given for the agreement between parties and thus it could not be enforced as a valid contract. Justice Field disagreed with this conclusion and stated that although there may have been some benefit received by Aike from entering into the agreement, such benefit did not need to be equal or equivalent to what Ouachita Packet Company gave up in order for consideration to exist. Furthermore, he noted that even if one party benefited more than another under an agreement does not necessarily mean it is invalid; rather courts should look at all of the circumstances surrounding each particular case when determining whether or not consideration exists. In his view, since both parties agreed upon certain terms and conditions which they were expected to abide by then those terms constituted sufficient consideration regardless of any perceived inequality between them. Therefore he concluded that Ouachita Packet Company should have been allowed recovery on their claim against Aike due to his breach of contract