In Zane & Another v. Soffe, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was between Zane and Soffe, and it stated that Soffe would pay Zane a certain amount of money in exchange for Zane's promise to not compete with Soffe in the same business. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was not against public policy, as it did not restrain trade or competition in any way. Furthermore, the Court found that the contract was not too vague or uncertain, as it clearly stated the amount of money to be paid and the promise not to compete. The Court also held that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, as Soffe had promised to pay Zane a certain amount of money in exchange for Zane's promise not to compete. The Court concluded that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Zane was entitled to the money promised by Soffe.

In Zane & Another v. Soffe, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties that had been partially performed could be rescinded by one party without any compensation for the other. The majority of justices held that such rescission was permissible and did not require payment of damages or restitution to the non-rescinding party. Justice Field dissented from this opinion, arguing that when a contract has been partially performed it should only be rescinded if there is an agreement between both parties or if some form of compensation is paid to make up for losses suffered due to breach of contract. He argued further that in cases where no agreement exists and no compensation is provided, courts should instead enforce specific performance rather than allowing unilateral rescission by either party without consequence.