Willard v. Wood was a Supreme Court case decided in 1882. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Willard, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Wood, to purchase a steamboat for $2,000. Willard paid the full amount, but Wood refused to deliver the boat. Willard then sued Wood for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Wood was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Wood had breached it by failing to deliver the boat. The Court also held that Willard was entitled to damages for the breach, and awarded him the full amount of the purchase price, plus interest. The Court's decision in Willard v. Wood established the principle that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages, and that the damages should be equal to the amount of the contract. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and is still an important part of contract law today.

In the Supreme Court case of Willard v. Wood, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion on behalf of himself and Justices Bradley and Swayne. He argued that the majority’s decision was wrong because it failed to consider the fact that there were two separate contracts between Willard and Wood: one for rent payments due in advance, and another for damages if those payments weren't made. According to Field, these two contracts should have been treated separately by the court; instead, they were lumped together as one contract with no consideration given to their distinct nature or purpose. Furthermore, he believed that since both parties had agreed upon specific terms regarding payment obligations prior to entering into either agreement—and thus had already established an understanding about what would happen if any party defaulted—the court should not have interfered with this arrangement by imposing its own judgment on how matters should be settled between them. In conclusion, Justice Field felt strongly that his colleagues' ruling was incorrect because it disregarded important facts related to each contract's individual characteristics while also failing to respect pre-existing agreements between both parties involved in this dispute.