In the case of Acme Harvester Company v. Beekman Lumber Company, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract for sale and delivery of goods had been breached. The Acme Harvester Company, an Illinois corporation, sold harvesting machines to Beekman Lumber Co., based in New York. However, due to financial difficulties faced by Beekman Lumber Co., they were unable to pay for all the machines delivered under their agreement. As such, Acme sued them for breach of contract in federal court and won a judgment against them. However, when it came time to enforce this judgment in New York (where Beekman's assets were located), complications arose because Illinois law allowed personal judgments against corporations while New York law did not recognize such judgments unless property was attached at the beginning of litigation - which hadn't happened here. The Supreme Court ruled that since no attachment had occurred at commencement of action as required by NY state laws where enforcement was sought; therefore there could be no valid judgement lien on defendant’s property within that jurisdiction despite plaintiff having obtained a personal judgement from another state.

The dissenting opinion in the case of ACME Harvester Company v. Beekman Lumber Company argued that the majority's decision was flawed because it failed to consider important aspects of contract law. The dissenting justices believed that there had been a valid and enforceable contract between the two parties, contrary to what the majority held. They pointed out that both companies had agreed on essential terms such as price, quantity, and delivery date for goods - elements necessary for a binding agreement under common law principles. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view about ambiguity in certain contractual provisions leading to its unenforceability; instead arguing that any ambiguities could have been resolved through standard interpretive methods or by looking at subsequent conduct of parties indicating their understanding of those ambiguous terms. Lastly, they were concerned about potential negative implications this ruling might have on commercial transactions where businesses often rely on informal agreements before formalizing them into detailed contracts.