Savery v. Sypher was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of a contract dispute between two parties. The case involved a contract between the plaintiff, William Savery, and the defendant, John Sypher, for the sale of a tract of land in Pennsylvania. Savery had agreed to sell the land to Sypher for a certain sum of money, but Sypher failed to pay the full amount. Savery then sued Sypher for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Sypher was liable for breach of contract and ordered him to pay the full amount of the purchase price. The Court also held that Savery was entitled to damages for the breach of contract, including the difference between the purchase price and the market value of the land at the time of the breach. The Court also held that Savery was entitled to interest on the unpaid balance. The Court's decision in Savery v. Sypher established the principle that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages, including the difference between the purchase price and the market value of the land at the time of the breach, as well as interest on the unpaid balance. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and is still used today to determine the liability of parties in contract disputes.

In the case of Savery v. Sypher, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The majority opinion held that it was not, but Justice Field dissented from this ruling. He argued that although there were some ambiguities in the language of the contract, they did not render it invalid or unenforceable as long as its meaning could be determined by looking at surrounding circumstances and evidence presented by both sides. Furthermore, he noted that if one party had been misled into believing something different than what actually appeared in writing then they should have taken steps to clarify any misunderstandings before signing off on an agreement. Finally, he concluded that since no fraud or mistake had been proven here then both parties should abide by their contractual obligations regardless of any ambiguity present within its terms and conditions.