In the case of Ball Engineering Company v. J.G. White & Company, 1918, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract for construction work in Mexico could be enforced under American law despite being illegal under Mexican law. The Ball Engineering Co., an American company, had entered into a contract with J.G White & Co., another American firm, to construct and equip certain works in Mexico but failed to obtain necessary permissions from Mexican authorities as required by local laws. When disputes arose regarding payments due under this contract, litigation ensued in US courts. The Supreme Court ruled that even though the agreement violated Mexican law because it lacked proper authorization from relevant authorities there; it did not necessarily render it unenforceable within US jurisdiction since both parties were Americans who made their agreement on American soil intending for its enforcement according to US laws. Therefore, while acknowledging respect towards foreign sovereignty and legal systems (comity), they held that these principles should not prevent domestic courts from enforcing contracts between its citizens unless such enforcement would violate public policy or harm national interests.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Ball Engineering Company v. J.G. White & Company argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with established legal principles regarding contracts and unjust enrichment. The dissent disagreed with the majority's interpretation of a clause within the contract, arguing it should not be interpreted to mean that any work done beyond what was explicitly stated would result in no compensation for additional labor or materials provided by Ball Engineering Company. They contended this interpretation effectively allowed J.G White & Co to benefit from services they did not pay for, which is contrary to principles of equity and fairness underpinning contract law. Furthermore, they believed there were ambiguities in how certain terms were defined within the agreement itself - such as "extra work" - which should have been resolved in favor of fair compensation rather than strict adherence to contractual language.