In the case of Read v. Bowman, the Supreme Court ruled that a contract between two parties was binding and could not be broken by one party without consequences. The plaintiff in this case, Read, had made an agreement with Bowman to purchase certain goods from him at a fixed price for three years. When Bowman refused to deliver on his promise after only one year, Read sued him for breach of contract. The court found in favor of Read and held that contracts must be honored unless there is some legal reason why they cannot be enforced or if both parties agree to terminate it. This ruling established important precedent regarding contractual obligations and has been used as guidance ever since when determining whether a contract should remain valid or not.

In the case of Read v. Bowman, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to an unjust result. He noted that under prior decisions, when a contract is made between two parties for the sale of land, it is binding on both parties regardless of whether one party has paid or not. In this case, Bowman had already paid for his portion of the land before Read attempted to back out; thus Field believed that Read should be held liable for his contractual obligations despite any subsequent changes in circumstances or laws. Furthermore, he argued that if such contracts were allowed to be broken without consequence then it would undermine public confidence in all future contracts and could potentially destabilize society as a whole by creating uncertainty about their enforceability.