In Traer & Another v. Clews, 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 an agreement between the plaintiffs, Traer and another, and the defendant, Clews, in which Clews agreed to pay Traer and another a certain sum of money in exchange for the transfer of certain real estate. 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 all of its terms. Furthermore, the Court found that the consideration for the contract was sufficient, and that the parties had acted in good faith. The Court also held that the contract was binding on both parties, and that the defendant was obligated to fulfill his obligations under the contract. The Court noted that the defendant had failed to do so, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to damages for the breach of contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Traer and another and Clews was valid and enforceable, and that the defendant was liable for damages for his breach of the contract.

In Traer & Another v. Clews, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties that had been partially performed could be enforced by one of the parties against the other. The majority opinion held that it could not, as there was no consideration for such an action and thus it would be unenforceable under existing law. However, in his dissenting opinion Justice Field argued that since part of the contract had already been fulfilled by both sides then this should constitute sufficient consideration to make enforcement possible. He further noted that if contracts were only enforceable when fully completed then this would create an incentive for people to breach their agreements once they have received some benefit from them; something which he felt went against public policy and common sense principles of fairness.