Packet Company v. McCue was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1873. The case involved a dispute between the Packet Company and McCue over a contract for the transportation of goods. The Packet Company had contracted with McCue to transport goods from New York to New Orleans. The contract specified that the goods were to be delivered within a certain time frame and that McCue was to be paid a certain amount for his services. McCue failed to deliver the goods within the specified time frame and the Packet Company refused to pay him the agreed upon amount. McCue then sued the Packet Company for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the Packet Company was liable for breach of contract and ordered them to pay McCue the agreed upon amount. The Court also held that McCue was entitled to damages for the delay in delivery of the goods. The Court reasoned that the Packet Company had failed to fulfill its contractual obligations and that McCue had suffered a loss as a result.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Packet Company v. McCue, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a great deal of uncertainty for businesses operating under contracts with similar language. He argued that it is well-established law that when parties enter into an agreement, they are bound by its terms regardless of whether those terms were reasonable or not at the time of formation. The contract between Packet Company and McCue clearly stated that if either party failed to fulfill their obligations within a certain period of time then all rights granted by the contract would be forfeited; this clause should have been enforced as written according to Justice Field. Furthermore, he noted that such clauses are common in business agreements and serve an important purpose: providing certainty regarding contractual performance expectations so both parties can plan accordingly without fear of being taken advantage of due to unforeseen delays or other issues beyond their control. Therefore, Justice Field concluded his dissent by urging the Court not to set aside long-standing principles simply because one party may have suffered some hardship from them in this particular case.