In the case of Baer v. Moran Brothers Company, 1893, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a contract for goods that were not yet produced could be considered valid under maritime law. The dispute arose when Baer contracted with Moran Brothers Company for delivery of iron plates which had not been manufactured at the time of agreement. When Moran failed to deliver as per schedule due to labor strikes and other issues, Baer sued them for breach of contract. However, Moran argued that since the goods did not exist at the time of contracting and thus couldn't have been identified specifically in their kind or quantity as required by maritime law, it wasn't a binding contract. The court ruled in favor of Moran Brothers Company stating that contracts involving future goods are speculative and uncertain by nature hence cannot form basis for suit under admiralty jurisdiction unless they can be clearly defined in terms or quality or quantity at time of contracting itself.

In the dissenting opinion for Baer v. Moran Brothers Company, Justice Brewer expressed his disagreement with the majority's interpretation of a clause in an insurance policy contract. He argued that the phrase "other like perils" should be interpreted broadly to include any similar risks or dangers, not just those specifically listed in the policy. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's assertion that because there was no specific mention of fire as a covered peril in this particular section of the policy, it must therefore be excluded from coverage. Instead, he believed that such an omission did not necessarily imply exclusion and could simply reflect oversight on part of those drafting the contract. Additionally, Justice Brewer pointed out inconsistencies within previous court decisions regarding similar cases which further complicated matters and made him question whether they were setting a dangerous precedent by narrowly interpreting contractual language rather than considering its broader intent.