Wight v. Condict was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved a contract between the plaintiff, Wight, and the defendant, Condict, for the sale of a tract of land. Wight had agreed to pay Condict $2,000 for the land, but Condict refused to accept the payment and instead sued Wight for the full amount of the contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between the two parties was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the land. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, as Condict had argued. The Court held that the contract was binding and that Wight was obligated to pay the full amount of the contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Wight and Condict was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration and that Wight was obligated to pay the full amount of the contract.

Justice Harlan dissented in the case of Wight v. Condict, arguing that the majority opinion was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that the lower court had correctly found that a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable, despite one party's failure to comply with certain conditions set forth by law. The majority opinion held otherwise, stating that since one party failed to meet those conditions, then the contract could not be enforced. Justice Harlan disagreed with this conclusion because he believed it would lead to an unjust result for both parties involved in this particular dispute as well as future disputes involving similar contracts. Furthermore, he noted how such a ruling would also create uncertainty when interpreting other contracts going forward due to its broad application of legal principles which were not applicable in this case or even necessary for resolving it properly. Therefore, Justice Harlan concluded his dissent by urging reversal of the decision so justice may prevail for all parties involved here and any others who might find themselves similarly situated in future cases