In the case of Water-Meter Company v. Desper, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to determine whether a contract between the Water-Meter Company and Desper was valid. The contract in question was for the sale of a water meter, and the Water-Meter Company argued that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, as the Water-Meter Company had provided the meter to Desper in exchange for payment. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of mutuality, as the Water-Meter Company had the right to sue for breach of contract. The Court also held that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, as the Water-Meter Company had provided the meter to Desper in exchange for payment. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of mutuality, as the Water-Meter Company had the right to sue for breach of contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between the Water-Meter Company and Desper was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, and that it was not void for lack of mutuality or consideration.

In the case of Water-Meter Company v. Desper, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was too narrow and failed to consider all relevant facts. He noted that while it is true that an agreement between two parties must be specific and definite in order for it to be enforced, this does not mean that such agreements cannot include implied terms or conditions. In this particular case, there were several circumstances surrounding the contract between Water-Meter Company and Desper which indicated an understanding on both sides as to how long delivery would take place after payment had been made; thus, Justice Field concluded that these should have been taken into consideration when determining whether or not Desper was entitled to damages due to late delivery of goods ordered from Water-Meter Company. Furthermore, he argued against limiting liability for breach of contract solely based on time frames set forth within written contracts since such limitations could lead one party unfairly taking advantage of another who may lack knowledge about legal matters related thereto.