In Whitney v. Cook, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was between a husband and wife, and it provided that the husband would pay the wife a certain sum of money each month for the rest of her life. The husband had failed to make the payments, and the wife sued to enforce the contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was not against public policy, and that it was not contrary to any law or statute. The Court also noted that the contract was not unconscionable, and that it was not against the interests of either party. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that the wife was entitled to the payments she was promised.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Whitney v. Cook, arguing that the majority had misconstrued the meaning of a contract between two parties and failed to consider certain facts when making their decision. He argued that while it was true that one party had agreed to pay for services rendered by another, they did not agree to be held liable for any additional costs incurred due to unforeseen circumstances or delays caused by either party. Furthermore, he noted that there were no provisions in the contract which allowed for such liability and thus it should not have been imposed on them as part of this case. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that if either party wanted such an agreement then they should have included specific language outlining those terms within their original contract rather than relying on general principles of law which could be interpreted differently depending upon context or circumstance.