SALOY v. BLOCH was a Supreme Court case from the year 1891. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a piece of land. The plaintiff, Saloy, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Bloch, to purchase a piece of land for $1,000. Saloy paid the full amount of the purchase price, but Bloch refused to transfer the deed to the land. Saloy then sued Bloch for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Bloch was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that Saloy had fulfilled all of his obligations under the contract, and that Bloch had failed to transfer the deed to the land. The Court also held that Bloch was liable for damages, and ordered him to pay Saloy the full purchase price of the land, plus interest. In conclusion, the Supreme Court found that Bloch was liable for breach of contract and ordered him to pay Saloy the full purchase price of the land, plus interest. This case serves as an important reminder that parties to a contract must fulfill their obligations in order to avoid legal liability.

In the dissenting opinion of Saloy v. Bloch, Justice Cardozo argued that the majority’s decision was too broad and would have a negative impact on future cases. He noted that while it is true that an agent has no authority to bind his principal if he does not possess actual or apparent authority, this case did not involve any such situation as there was evidence of both actual and apparent authority in play. Furthermore, Justice Cardozo argued that even if the agent had exceeded their scope of authority by making unauthorized promises, those promises should still be binding upon the principal since they were made with reasonable reliance from third parties who believed them to be valid. In conclusion, Justice Cardozo felt strongly that allowing principals to escape liability for contracts entered into by agents with reasonable reliance from third parties would create uncertainty in business transactions and lead to unjust results which could harm innocent individuals who relied upon these agreements in good faith.