In Russell v. Farley, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was between a husband and wife, and it provided that the husband would pay the wife a certain amount of money each month for the rest of her life. The husband had failed to make the payments, and the wife sued to enforce the contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was not against public policy, and that it was not contrary to any law. The Court also noted that the contract was not unconscionable, and that it was not against the interests of either party. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that the wife was entitled to the payments she was promised.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Russell v. Farley, arguing that the majority had misinterpreted a key provision of the contract between parties and failed to consider relevant evidence. He argued that under California law, which governed this case, an agreement was binding on both parties even if it contained errors or omissions as long as those were not material to its purpose. In this case, he argued that there was no dispute about what terms had been agreed upon by both parties; rather, they disagreed over how those terms should be interpreted and applied in practice. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that while some of the evidence presented at trial may have been conflicting or incomplete due to missing documents from one party's files, other testimony indicated clearly what each side intended when entering into their agreement. Thus he concluded that since there was sufficient evidence for a jury to determine whether either party breached their obligations under the contract based on its interpretation of all available facts and circumstances surrounding it - including any ambiguities - then summary judgment should not have been granted in favor of either side without allowing them their day in court first.