In SCOVILL v. THAYER, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid. The contract in question was between the plaintiff, Scovill, and the defendant, Thayer. Scovill had agreed to sell Thayer a parcel of land for a certain sum of money. Thayer had agreed to pay the sum in installments, but had failed to make the payments as agreed. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that the parties had agreed to the terms of the contract. The Court also noted that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that each party had given something of value in exchange for the other's promise. The Court further held that Thayer was liable for the payments he had failed to make. The Court noted that Thayer had received the benefit of the bargain, and that he was therefore obligated to fulfill his part of the agreement. The Court also noted that Thayer had not raised any defenses to the contract, and that he was therefore liable for the payments he had failed to make. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Scovill and Thayer was valid and enforceable, and that Thayer was liable for the payments he had failed to make.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in SCOVILL v. THAYER, arguing that the majority had failed to consider a key issue: whether or not Thayer was liable for his actions as an agent of Scovill. He argued that while it is true that agents are generally responsible for their own acts and omissions, there may be circumstances where they can be held liable if they have acted on behalf of another person without authority. In this case, he believed there was sufficient evidence to suggest that Thayer had been acting as an agent of Scovill when he sold property belonging to him without authorization; therefore, Justice Field concluded that Thayer should be held accountable for his actions and ordered to pay damages accordingly.