Zantzingers v. Gunton was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved two parties, Zantzingers and Gunton, who had entered into a contract for the sale of a piece of land. The contract stated that the land was to be sold for a certain amount of money, and that the buyer was to pay the seller a certain amount of money upon completion of the sale. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that the parties had agreed to the terms of the contract. The Court also found that the parties had acted in good faith and had not acted fraudulently or in bad faith. The Court also found that the contract was not unconscionable, and that the parties had not acted in a manner that would render the contract void or unenforceable. The Court's decision in Zantzingers v. Gunton established that contracts between two parties are valid and enforceable, provided that the parties have acted in good faith and have not acted fraudulently or in bad faith. The Court also established that contracts are not rendered void or unenforceable simply because they are unconscionable. This case serves as an important precedent for contract law in the United States.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Zantzingers v. Gunton, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misinterpretation of the relevant statute. He argued that under the plain language of the statute, it did not provide for an appeal to be taken from a judgment rendered by a court of equity when there had been no jury trial and no issue joined between parties litigant. The purpose of this particular section was to allow appeals only where issues were tried before juries and judgments entered upon them; thus, Justice Field concluded that since there had been neither here, an appeal should not have been allowed in this case. Furthermore, he noted that allowing such appeals would open up courts to numerous unnecessary suits which could lead to confusion and delay justice being served - something which Congress clearly intended to avoid with its enactment of this particular law.