In the United States v. Benchimol case of 1984, the Supreme Court ruled that a plea agreement is not enforceable unless it has been accepted by the court. The defendant, David Benchimol, had entered into a plea bargain with prosecutors in which he agreed to plead guilty to one count of mail fraud in exchange for dismissal of other charges and a recommendation for leniency at sentencing. However, when presenting this deal before the judge during his hearing, both parties misrepresented its terms leading to an incorrect record being made about what was agreed upon. Later on when Mr.Benchimol realized that he would be sentenced more harshly than expected based on these misrepresentations and asked for withdrawal from his guilty plea or enforcement of original agreement terms; both were denied by lower courts stating that there was no breach as such agreements are subject to court approval which hadn't happened here yet due to inaccurate representation earlier. The Supreme Court upheld these decisions emphasizing that until acceptance by court happens after proper disclosure & consideration; any such deals between prosecution & defense remain tentative proposals only without binding effect thus cannot be enforced legally against anyone's will later if they change their mind before final judicial approval stage arrives.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Benchimol, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with the fundamental principle of contract law which states that a party who has not agreed to be bound by an agreement is not legally obligated to fulfill its terms. He contended that there was no evidence in this case showing Mr. Benchimol had accepted or even knew about the government’s offer before it withdrew it, and thus he could not be held accountable for breaching any supposed agreement. Furthermore, Justice Stevens pointed out inconsistencies within previous rulings on similar cases and criticized how such discrepancies can lead to confusion and unpredictability in legal proceedings. He concluded his argument by stating that if a plea bargain is indeed a contract as defined by law, then all principles of contract law should apply consistently across all cases without exception.