In the case of Bay v. Merrill & Ring Logging Company, 1916, the United States Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a contract for the sale of timber could be considered valid if it did not specify an exact price but instead referred to a fluctuating market rate. The plaintiff, Bay, had entered into such a contract with Merrill & Ring Logging Company and later sued when he believed he was not paid adequately according to market prices at the time of delivery. The court ruled in favor of Merrill & Ring Logging Company stating that even though no specific price was mentioned in their agreement, there were enough details provided on how pricing would be determined based on prevailing market rates which made it enforceable under law.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Bay v. Merrill & Ring Logging Company argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of both contract law and maritime law. The dissenters believed that, contrary to the majority's ruling, there was indeed a valid contract between Bay and Merrill & Ring Logging Company for the sale of timber. They contended that this agreement should be recognized as such under maritime law because it involved goods being transported by sea. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that no breach had occurred on part of Merrill & Ring Logging Company; instead, they maintained that failure to deliver timber according to agreed-upon terms constituted a clear violation of contractual obligations. Thus, in their view, Bay should have been entitled to damages for this breach.