The Washington University v. Rouse was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1869. The case involved a dispute between the Washington University and the Rouse family over a piece of land in the District of Columbia. The university had purchased the land from the Rouse family in 1867, but the Rouses later claimed that the university had not paid them the full amount for the land. The university argued that the Rouses had agreed to the sale and that they had received the full amount for the land. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the university, ruling that the Rouses had agreed to the sale and that the university had paid them the full amount for the land. The court also held that the university had the right to use the land for educational purposes, as it had been intended when the sale was made. The court also noted that the university had acted in good faith in the transaction and that the Rouses had not been misled or taken advantage of. This ruling established the principle that a contract is binding and that parties to a contract must abide by its terms.

In the case of The Washington University v. Rouse, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration. The majority opinion held that contracts without consideration were not enforceable and thus dismissed the plaintiff's claim. However, in his dissenting opinion Justice Field argued that there should be an exception for cases where one party has already performed their part of the agreement and is seeking compensation from another party who failed to fulfill their obligations under said agreement. He reasoned that if such an exception existed then it would encourage people to enter into agreements with good faith intentions rather than simply relying on legal considerations as a basis for enforcing them. Furthermore, he noted that this type of situation often arises in business dealings which require quick action and may not always have time or resources available for formalities like obtaining written contracts with valid considerations attached thereto. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that allowing exceptions in these types of cases would help promote fairness among contracting parties while also encouraging individuals to act responsibly when entering into contractual arrangements with others