Roberts v. Benjamin was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between the plaintiff, Roberts, and the defendant, Benjamin, in which Roberts agreed to pay Benjamin a certain sum of money in exchange for a certain amount of land. The contract was signed by both parties, but Benjamin later refused to honor the agreement. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was signed by both parties and that there was no evidence that either party had acted in bad faith. The Court also noted that the contract was not unconscionable or otherwise invalid. As such, the Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable and that Roberts was entitled to the land he had agreed to purchase.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Roberts v. Benjamin, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that under California law, a contract of sale is not binding unless it has been accepted by both parties and there is evidence of consideration given for its performance. In this case, he noted that no such acceptance or consideration had been provided by either party; therefore, the contract was voidable at best. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that even if an acceptance had occurred between the two parties prior to litigation being initiated in court - as alleged by plaintiff - then any subsequent repudiation would have voided said agreement due to lack of mutuality between them. Finally, he asserted that since defendant never received anything from plaintiff other than verbal promises which were later retracted without cause or justification; thus rendering him unable to perform his part of bargain according to terms set forth in original contract - defendant could not be held liable for breach thereof nor damages resulting therefrom as per California law on contracts.