The Barrett Company v. United States case in 1926 revolved around a dispute over the interpretation of a contract between the U.S. government and The Barrett Company, which was engaged to provide roofing materials for post offices across several states. The company claimed that it had been underpaid by $13,000 due to an incorrect calculation of freight charges based on weight rather than volume as stipulated in the contract. However, the Supreme Court ruled against The Barrett Company stating that there was no ambiguity in the terms of their agreement with regards to how freight charges should be calculated; they were clearly defined as being based on weight not volume. Therefore, any misunderstanding or misinterpretation lay solely with The Barrett Company who failed to clarify these terms before entering into and executing this contract.

In the dissenting opinion for Barrett Company v. United States, it was argued that the government did not have a right to recover damages from the Barrett Company under Section 3490 of Revised Statutes. The justice believed that this section only applied in cases where fraud had been committed against the government and there was no evidence of such fraudulent activity by Barrett Company. Furthermore, he contended that even if there were grounds for recovery under Section 3490, any claim should be limited to actual damages suffered by the government rather than extending to include potential profits lost due to alleged price-fixing activities. He also expressed concern about setting a dangerous precedent whereby businesses could be held liable for vast sums based on speculative calculations of what might have happened under different circumstances.