In Alexander Rankin, Cunningham Smith, George C.C. Thurger and John McCall v Jesse Hoyt, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case regarding an alleged breach of contract between two parties in which one party was accused of failing to pay for goods received from another party. The plaintiffs argued that they had entered into a contract with defendant Jesse Hoyt wherein he agreed to purchase certain goods from them at a set price and failed to make payment as promised upon delivery of said goods. The defendants countered by arguing that no such agreement existed or ever occurred between the two parties and thus there was no obligation on their part to make any payments whatsoever for these items purchased. After hearing both sides’ arguments, the court ultimately ruled in favor of plaintiff Rankin et al., finding that indeed there had been an agreement between them and defendant Hoyt whereby he agreed to purchase certain items from them at a set price but then failed to fulfill his end of this bargain by not making payment when due after receiving said items; therefore awarding damages accordingly against him for breaching this contract

In the case of Alexander Rankin, Cunningham Smith, George C.C. Thurger and John McCall v Jesse Hoyt, the dissenting opinion was that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms unless it is found to be illegal or against public policy. The majority had held that in this particular case, where one party had failed to perform their part of the agreement due to an unforeseen event beyond their control (the death of a third-party), they were not liable for damages as there was no breach of contract on their part. However, Justice Catron argued that such an interpretation would lead to injustice and uncertainty in commercial transactions as parties could easily avoid liability by claiming unforeseeable events outside their control prevented them from performing under a contract - even if those events were foreseeable at the time when entering into said agreement. He further argued that contracts are binding obligations which must be upheld regardless of any intervening circumstances; otherwise contractual agreements would become meaningless and unreliable instruments for conducting business affairs with certainty and security