Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Robertson v. Sichel

• 1887 • 127 U.S. 507 • Waite Court
Robertson v. Sichel was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between Robertson, a New York resident, and Sichel, a resident of the District of Columbia. Robertson had agreed to purchase a large quantity of goods from Sichel, but the goods were never delivered. Robertson sued Sichel for breach of contract, but Sichel argued that the contract was invalid because it had not been properly...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Waite Court
Term: 1887
Docket: 269
127 U.S. 507
8 S. Ct. 1286
32 L. Ed. 203
1888 U.S. LEXIS 2014
Argued: May 01, 1888

Robertson v. Sichel

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Robertson v. Sichel was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between Robertson, a New York resident, and Sichel, a resident of the District of Columbia. Robertson had agreed to purchase a large quantity of goods from Sichel, but the goods were never delivered. Robertson sued Sichel for breach of contract, but Sichel argued that the contract was invalid because it had not been properly executed. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was made in good faith and that the parties had intended to be bound by its terms. The Court also noted that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, as Robertson had agreed to pay for the goods and Sichel had agreed to deliver them. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Robertson was entitled to damages for breach of contract.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Robertson v. Sichel, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made in violation of an existing state law. The majority opinion held that the contract should not be enforced because it violated public policy and was therefore voidable by either party to the agreement. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling on several grounds. He argued that contracts are generally binding regardless of their legality or illegality under state laws unless they involve matters which are considered immoral or against public policy; he further noted that there were no such considerations present in this case and thus enforcing the contract would not violate any moral principles or public policies. Additionally, Justice Field stated that if one party to a contract is allowed to avoid its obligations simply because it violates some statute then all contracts would become uncertain as parties could always find some reason why they should not have to fulfill their contractual obligations due to violations of various statutes.

Opinion written by Justice SBlatchford
Decided: May 14, 1888
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms