In the Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Baldwin case of 1917, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a contract for sale had been made between Abercrombie & Fitch and Baldwin over a shipment of goods that were lost at sea before delivery could be completed. The court ruled in favor of Abercrombie & Fitch, stating that no formal contract existed because there was no mutual agreement on terms such as price and quantity; instead, only an offer to sell had been extended by Abercrombie & Fitch which did not bind them legally to complete the transaction. Furthermore, it was determined that even if a contract had existed, it would have been voided due to impossibility of performance caused by unforeseen circumstances (the loss at sea). This ruling set important precedents regarding contractual obligations and conditions under which contracts can be nullified.

In the dissenting opinion for Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Baldwin, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's ruling that Abercrombie & Fitch had infringed upon Baldwin's trademark rights by selling fishing flies under a similar name to those produced by Baldwin. He argued that there was no evidence of actual confusion among consumers or intent on part of Abercrombie & Fitch to deceive customers and profit from Baldwin’s reputation. Furthermore, he contended that both parties were using descriptive names for their products which should not be monopolized through trademark protection as it would limit competition and harm public interest in having access to descriptively named goods at lower prices due to competition.