In the case of Stewart & Company v. Rivara, the Supreme Court examined whether a contract for sale and delivery of goods was enforceable when it did not specify a price or method to determine one. The plaintiff, Stewart & Company, had entered into an agreement with defendant Rivara to sell him 500 barrels of alcohol at market price on the day of shipment. However, no specific price was mentioned in their written agreement nor any mechanism provided for determining that price if they disagreed about what constituted "market value". When Rivara refused to pay more than he believed was fair market value (which was less than what Stewart demanded), litigation ensued. The court held that under Section 4 of the Uniform Sales Act (adopted by New York where this transaction occurred), such contracts are indeed valid and enforceable even without explicit pricing terms as long as both parties intended them to be binding agreements. It further ruled that in cases like these where there is disagreement over “market value”, courts should use evidence from comparable transactions around same time period to establish reasonable prices.

In the dissenting opinion for Stewart & Company v. Rivara, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with prior rulings and principles of equity. He contended that a contract should not be voided simply because it is difficult to determine damages resulting from its breach. Instead, he suggested that courts should make their best effort to estimate such damages based on available evidence and circumstances surrounding each case. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view about speculative profits being too uncertain for recovery in this case as they were reasonably ascertainable by reference to usual business experience or market conditions at the time of making contracts. Therefore, according to him, denying recovery on grounds of uncertainty would unjustly allow one party to benefit from breaching a contract without any consequences.