Reynes v. Dumont is a Supreme Court case from 1845 that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a dispute between two French citizens, Reynes and Dumont, over a contract for the sale of a piece of land. Reynes had agreed to sell the land to Dumont for a certain sum of money, but Dumont refused to pay the full amount. Reynes then sued Dumont for breach of contract. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Reynes, finding that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court held that the contract was binding on both parties, and that Dumont was obligated to pay the full amount of money agreed upon. The Court also noted that the contract was not invalidated by the fact that it was made between two foreign citizens, as the contract was made in accordance with the laws of the country in which it was made. The Court's decision in Reynes v. Dumont established the principle that contracts between two parties are binding and enforceable, regardless of the nationality of the parties involved. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and is still an important part of contract law today.

In the case of Reynes v. Dumont, Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had incorrectly interpreted and applied the law to this particular case. He disagreed with their conclusion that an individual who was injured while working on a vessel owned by another person could not sue for damages under general maritime law because they were not employed by or contracted with the owner of said vessel. According to Scalia, it is well established in maritime law that any person who suffers injury due to negligence on board a ship can bring suit against its owner regardless of whether they are employed or contracted with them; thus, he believed that Reynes should be allowed to proceed with his claim against Dumont as per existing legal precedent. Furthermore, Scalia noted how allowing such claims would serve as an important deterrent for owners whose vessels may be unsafe and potentially cause harm to those aboard them without consequence if these types of suits were barred from being brought forward.