In Sloane & Others v. Anderson, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was between the plaintiffs, Sloane & Others, and the defendant, Anderson. The plaintiffs had agreed to purchase a tract of land from Anderson, and had paid him a portion of the purchase price. Anderson had then sold the land to a third party, and the plaintiffs sued Anderson for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between the plaintiffs and Anderson was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, and that the plaintiffs had performed their part of the agreement by paying Anderson a portion of the purchase price. The Court also found that Anderson had breached the contract by selling the land to a third party without the plaintiffs' consent. As a result, the Court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to damages for the breach of contract.

In Sloane & Others v. Anderson, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced despite one of them being under duress at the time it was signed. The majority opinion held that since there had been no fraud or misrepresentation involved in the making of this contract, it should be upheld and enforced by law. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on the grounds that any agreement made while one party is under duress cannot be considered valid or binding as they are not entering into it voluntarily and without coercion. He argued that even though there may have been no fraud present in this case, allowing such contracts to stand would set a dangerous precedent for future cases where an individual’s rights were violated due to their inability to make decisions freely and without pressure from another person or entity.