In Francis Surgett v. Peter M. Lapice and Edward Whittlesey, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when one party had not received full payment for their services as agreed upon in the contract. The appellant, Francis Surgett, argued that he should receive full payment from both defendants for his services as a contractor on an unfinished building project due to their breach of contract by failing to pay him what they had promised in accordance with their agreement. The respondents countered that since only one defendant was named in the original complaint filed by Surgett, they were each liable only for half of what was owed under the terms of the contract and thus did not owe any additional money beyond this amount. After considering all arguments presented before it,the court ultimately ruled in favor of Surgett and held that both defendants were jointly responsible for paying him according to what was originally agreed upon between them despite being named separately within his initial complaint against them.

In Francis Surgett v. Peter M. Lapice and Edward Whittlesey, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties that had been made in good faith could be voided due to an error in one of the party's understanding of the terms of the agreement. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not voidable because they had been entered into with full knowledge and consent by both parties, even if one party misunderstood some aspect of it. However, Justice McLean dissented from this opinion on grounds that he believed a contract should be considered invalid when there is evidence showing that one or both parties did not understand its terms at all or fully comprehended them before entering into it. He argued further that any misunderstanding should render a contract voidable as long as it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt by either side involved in litigation over its validity.