Robertson v. Gerdan was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1891. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Robertson, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Gerdan, to purchase a steamboat for $2,000. Robertson paid the full amount, but Gerdan refused to deliver the boat. Robertson then sued Gerdan for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Gerdan was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Gerdan had breached it by failing to deliver the boat. The Court also held that Robertson was entitled to damages for the breach, and awarded him the full amount of the purchase price, plus interest. The decision in Robertson v. Gerdan established the principle that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages, and that the damages should be equal to the amount of the contract. This case is still cited today as an example of the importance of upholding contracts and enforcing their terms.

In the Supreme Court case of Robertson v. Gerdan, Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had erred by not properly applying precedent set forth in prior cases. He believed that the court should have applied an objective standard to determine whether or not there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of liability on behalf of Robertson and Gerdan for their alleged negligence. Instead, he argued that the majority had used a subjective standard based upon its own personal beliefs about what constituted reasonable care under similar circumstances. Furthermore, Scalia noted that this decision could potentially lead to more litigation as parties would be incentivized to bring claims against each other regardless of actual fault due to uncertainty over how courts will interpret such matters going forward. Ultimately, Justice Scalia concluded his dissent by stating his belief that it was wrong for the court’s ruling “to create new law rather than apply existing law” and urged them instead “to adhere strictly to established principles governing tort liability."