In A. B. Small Company v. Lamborn & Company, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of A.B Small Co., stating that a contract to sell sugar at prices higher than those set by the United States Sugar Equalization Board was not unenforceable due to illegality. The case arose when Lamborn & Co refused to pay for sugar purchased from A.B Small Co on grounds that the price exceeded government-set limits during World War I and thus violated wartime legislation aimed at controlling commodity prices (the Lever Act). However, the court held that this law did not explicitly render such contracts illegal or unenforceable but merely subjected offenders to potential penalties; it did not intend to deprive sellers of their right to collect agreed-upon payments for goods sold and delivered under such contracts.

In the dissenting opinion for A. B. Small Company v. Lamborn & Company, Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision was based on a misinterpretation of the Lever Act and its intentions during World War I times of crisis. He contended that Congress intended to stabilize prices and prevent profiteering by allowing contracts made under government-fixed prices to be enforceable even after those fixed prices were no longer in effect post-war, contrary to what the majority concluded. The justice believed this interpretation would better serve public policy by preventing unjust enrichment at others' expense due to sudden price changes following war periods, which he saw as an unfair exploitation of circumstances rather than legitimate business practice or competition.