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

Sharp v. Stamping Company

• 1880 • 103 U.S. 250 • Waite Court
Sharp v. Stamping Company was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1881. The case involved a dispute between two companies, Sharp and Stamping Company, over a contract for the sale of goods. Sharp had agreed to purchase a large quantity of goods from Stamping Company, but Stamping Company failed to deliver the goods as promised. Sharp sued Stamping Company for breach of contract, and the case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that Stamping...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: 1880
Docket: 245
103 U.S. 250
26 L. Ed. 445
1880 U.S. LEXIS 2111
Argued: Mar 09, 1881

Sharp v. Stamping Company

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Sharp v. Stamping Company was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1881. The case involved a dispute between two companies, Sharp and Stamping Company, over a contract for the sale of goods. Sharp had agreed to purchase a large quantity of goods from Stamping Company, but Stamping Company failed to deliver the goods as promised. Sharp sued Stamping Company for breach of contract, and the case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that Stamping Company was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that Stamping Company had failed to fulfill its obligations under the contract, and that Sharp was entitled to damages for the breach. The Court also held that Sharp was entitled to recover the costs of the suit, including attorney's fees. In its decision, the Supreme Court established the principle that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages, and that the non-breaching party is entitled to recover the costs of the suit, including attorney's fees. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and is still an important part of contract law today.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Sharp v. Stamping Company, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of judicial power. He argued that courts should not be allowed to interfere with contracts between private parties unless there is clear evidence of fraud or illegality. In this case, he noted that no such evidence existed; rather, it appeared as though one party had simply failed to fulfill its contractual obligations. As such, Justice Field believed it was inappropriate for the court to intervene on behalf of either party and instead urged them both to seek relief through other means outside of the judicial system. Furthermore, he warned against allowing courts too much discretion when interpreting contract law as this could lead down a slippery slope where judges are able override agreements made by two consenting adults without any legal justification whatsoever.

Opinion written by Justice WBWoods
Decided: Mar 21, 1881
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