The U.S. Supreme Court case Allanwilde Transport Corporation v. Vacuum Oil Company in 1918 revolved around a dispute over the delivery of oil cargo during World War I. The Allanwilde Transport Corporation had been contracted by the Vacuum Oil Company to deliver a shipment of oil from New York to France, but due to wartime risks and dangers, it was agreed that if the ship were unable to complete its journey for any reason, it would be diverted to an alternative port in England instead. When this situation occurred and the ship was indeed redirected, Vacuum refused payment on grounds that their contract stipulated delivery specifically at Havre or Rouen (France). However, upon reaching court level review, it was determined that given war conditions at sea during WWI which made travel unpredictable and dangerous - including submarine warfare - there existed an implied condition within contracts such as these allowing for reasonable deviation from original plans when necessary for safety reasons. Therefore, despite not delivering directly into French ports as originally planned due to unavoidable circumstances beyond control related with war hazards; Allanwilde's diversion did not constitute breach of contract hence they were entitled compensation.

In the dissenting opinion for Allanwilde Transport Corporation v. Vacuum Oil Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold Allanwilde liable for damages incurred by Vacuum Oil due to a collision at sea was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that both parties were equally at fault and should therefore share responsibility for the damage caused. They contended that although Allanwilde’s ship did not follow proper navigation rules, neither did Vacuum Oil’s vessel which failed to maintain a proper lookout as required by maritime law. Therefore, they felt it unjust and contrary to established principles of admiralty law to place full liability on one party when both had contributed negligently towards causing the accident.