In Wood v. Carpenter, 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 carpenter, Carpenter, and a lumber merchant, Wood. Carpenter had agreed to purchase lumber from Wood and pay for it in installments. Carpenter had made the first installment payment, but failed to make the second payment. Wood then sued Carpenter for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that Carpenter had made the first installment payment and that the contract was not void for lack of consideration. The Court also noted that Carpenter had not raised any defenses to the contract, such as fraud or duress. Therefore, the Court held that Carpenter was liable for breach of contract and ordered him to pay the remaining balance. The Court's decision in Wood v. Carpenter established that contracts are binding and enforceable, even if they are not paid in full. The decision also established that a party cannot avoid liability for breach of contract by raising defenses that were not raised at the time the contract was entered into.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Wood v. Carpenter, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding on both of them, regardless of any subsequent changes to it or its terms. In this case, he believed that Mr. Wood had an enforceable right to receive his wages for services rendered as agreed upon in their original contract; thus, when Mr. Carpenter refused to pay him what he was owed under said agreement, he breached their contractual obligations and should have been held liable for damages accordingly. Justice Field further noted that while courts may modify contracts if they are found to be unconscionable or otherwise invalid due to fraud or mistake by one party over another, such circumstances were not present here and therefore could not justify denying Mr. Wood his rightful compensation from Mr Carpenter for work performed according to their initial agreement