In the case of Bain Peanut Company of Texas et al. v. Pinson et al., 1930, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract for future delivery of goods could be considered valid if it did not specify an exact quantity to be delivered. The dispute arose when Bain Peanut Company entered into a contract with Pinson and others to deliver all peanuts they produced during a certain period at an agreed price per bushel. However, no specific quantity was mentioned in the agreement. When Bain failed to deliver any peanuts, Pinson sued for breach of contract. The court ruled that such contracts are enforceable even without specifying an exact amount as long as there is some basis on which courts can determine what parties intended or how much should have been delivered under reasonable circumstances (such as past dealings). The ruling clarified that "requirements contracts," where one party agrees to supply all requirements of another party over specified time but without stating precise quantities, are legally binding.

In the dissenting opinion for Bain Peanut Company of Texas et al. v. Pinson et al., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law restricting peanut sales was an overreach of judicial power and violated principles of federalism. He contended that it is not within the purview of courts to determine economic policy or assess its wisdom, but rather their role is to interpret laws in accordance with constitutional provisions. In this case, he believed there was no clear violation of due process rights as claimed by plaintiffs because they were still able to sell peanuts; only their method had been restricted by legislation aimed at protecting public health and welfare from potential harm caused by unregulated peanut trade practices. Furthermore, he emphasized that states should have broad authority under police powers doctrine to regulate local businesses for public good unless such regulations clearly infringe upon constitutionally protected liberties or property rights - which he did not find evident here.