Yale Lock Manufacturing Company v. Berkshire National Bank was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1925. The case involved a dispute between the Yale Lock Manufacturing Company and the Berkshire National Bank over a contract for the sale of locks. The bank had agreed to purchase locks from the company, but the company failed to deliver the locks as promised. The bank then sued the company for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the bank was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court found that the company had failed to fulfill its obligations under the contract and that the bank was entitled to recover damages for the breach. The Court also held that the bank was entitled to recover the costs of litigation, including attorney's fees, as part of the damages. The Court's decision in this case established the principle that a party to a contract is entitled to recover damages for a breach of contract, including the costs of litigation. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then and is an important part of contract law.

In the dissenting opinion for Yale Lock Manufacturing Company v. Berkshire National Bank, Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision was too narrow and did not take into account all of the facts presented in this case. He believed that a broader interpretation of contract law should be applied to determine whether or not there had been an implied agreement between the parties involved. In his view, it was possible for an implied agreement to exist even if one party had never explicitly agreed to any terms; instead, he suggested that certain actions taken by both parties could be interpreted as evidence of such an agreement. Furthermore, he argued that since no written contract existed between Yale and Berkshire National Bank, it would have been unfair for them to deny liability based on their lack of knowledge about what exactly transpired during negotiations leading up to this dispute. Ultimately, Justice Holmes concluded that while a court may find against either party in cases like these without clear evidence of mutual assent or consideration given by each side, they must at least consider all available information before making such a ruling - something which he felt had not occurred here due to the majority's overly restrictive interpretation of contract law principles.