Peters v. Active Manufacturing Company was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1945. The case involved a dispute between a former employee of Active Manufacturing Company, William Peters, and the company itself. Peters had been employed by the company for over twenty years, and had been promised a pension upon retirement. However, when he retired, the company refused to pay him the pension, claiming that he had not fulfilled the requirements for eligibility. Peters argued that the company had breached its contract with him, and that he was entitled to the pension. The Supreme Court agreed, ruling in favor of Peters. The Court held that the company had a duty to fulfill its promise to Peters, and that it had failed to do so. The Court also held that the company had acted in bad faith by refusing to pay the pension, and that Peters was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court ordered the company to pay Peters the pension he was owed, plus damages for the breach of contract.

In the Supreme Court case of Peters v. Active Manufacturing Company, Justice Douglas delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was too narrow and failed to take into account all relevant facts. He argued that the court should have considered other evidence such as testimony from witnesses who had seen or heard about an alleged agreement between Peters and Active Manufacturing Company (AMC). Furthermore, he believed that AMC should not be allowed to benefit from its own wrongdoing by using procedural technicalities to avoid liability for breaching their contract with Peters. In conclusion, Justice Douglas felt that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support a finding of breach of contract against AMC and thus they should be held liable for damages suffered by Peters due to their actions.