Stoutenburgh v. Hennick was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1889. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a farm. The plaintiff, Stoutenburgh, had agreed to purchase the farm from the defendant, Hennick, for a certain sum of money. However, Hennick refused to accept the payment and instead demanded a higher price. Stoutenburgh then sued Hennick for breach of contract. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Stoutenburgh, finding that Hennick had breached the contract by refusing to accept the agreed-upon payment. The Court held that a contract is binding and that a party cannot unilaterally change the terms of the agreement. The Court also held that a party cannot use the threat of litigation to force the other party to accept a higher price. The decision in Stoutenburgh v. Hennick established an important precedent in contract law. It established that a contract is binding and that a party cannot unilaterally change the terms of the agreement. It also established that a party cannot use the threat of litigation to force the other party to accept a higher price. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then and has become an important part of contract law.

In the dissenting opinion of Stoutenburgh v. Hennick, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to reverse and remand was incorrect because it failed to consider whether or not a reasonable jury could have found for either party on the issue of negligence. He believed that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial which would allow a reasonable jury to find in favor of either party, thus making summary judgment inappropriate. Furthermore, he noted that even if one were to accept all facts as alleged by Hennick (the plaintiff), they still did not prove his case beyond a preponderance of evidence since some key elements remained unresolved due to conflicting testimony from witnesses and experts. Therefore, Justice Stevens concluded that this case should be decided by a jury rather than through summary judgment so as ensure justice is served fairly and accurately according to established legal principles.