In Thatcher Heating Company v. Burtis, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The plaintiff, Thatcher Heating Company, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Burtis, to install a heating system in Burtis' home. The contract provided that Burtis would pay for the installation in installments, with the final payment due upon completion of the work. Burtis failed to make the final payment, and Thatcher Heating Company sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that the parties had agreed to the terms of the contract. The Court also noted that the contract was supported by consideration, as Burtis had received the benefit of the heating system, and Thatcher Heating Company had provided the labor and materials necessary to install the system. The Court held that Burtis was liable for breach of contract and ordered him to pay the remaining balance due to Thatcher Heating Company. The Court also held that Burtis was liable for damages, as he had failed to make the final payment despite having received the benefit of the heating system.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Thatcher Heating Company v. Burtis, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. The case concerned a contract between two parties for heating services to be provided by Thatcher Heating Company to Burtis. After providing some of the services, but not all of them, as agreed upon in their contract, Burtis refused to pay for any of it on grounds that they had been unsatisfied with what had been done so far. The majority held that since there was no breach or fraud involved here and since both parties were aware at the time they entered into this agreement that only part of what was promised would actually be performed before payment became due from either party, then Burtis could not refuse payment without breaching their own contractual obligations first. Justice Field disagreed with this reasoning because he felt it failed to take into account certain facts which showed how one-sidedly beneficial this arrangement really was for Thatcher Heating Company over its customer - namely how much more money they stood to make if customers like Burtis were forced into paying up even when dissatisfied with service rendered thus far - and argued instead that such an arrangement should never have been allowed under law given these circumstances.