In Packet Company v. Sickles, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The plaintiff, Packet Company, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Sickles, to transport goods from one port to another. The contract specified that the goods would be delivered within a certain time frame and that Sickles would pay Packet Company a certain amount of money for the service. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous and that both parties had agreed to its terms. The Court also noted that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had received something of value in exchange for their agreement. The Court also held that Packet Company was entitled to damages for breach of contract. The Court noted that Sickles had failed to pay the agreed-upon amount and that Packet Company had suffered a financial loss as a result. The Court ordered Sickles to pay Packet Company the amount specified in the contract, plus interest.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Packet Company v. Sickles, arguing that the majority had misinterpreted the contract between Packet Company and Sickles. The contract stated that if Sickles failed to pay for goods purchased from Packet Company, then he would be liable for damages equal to double their value; however, Justice Field argued that this was not an agreement of penalty but rather a stipulation of liquidated damages. He reasoned that since it was impossible to determine with certainty what amount should be paid as compensation for breach of contract prior to its occurrence, both parties agreed upon a reasonable estimate which could serve as security against any future loss or damage caused by such breach. Furthermore, Justice Field maintained that even though there may have been some uncertainty regarding how much money should be awarded in this case due to changing market conditions over time, it did not invalidate the original agreement made between both parties at its inception. Therefore he concluded by asserting his disagreement with the majority's decision and urging them reconsider their ruling on these grounds