Bene v. Jeantet was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1891. The case involved a dispute between two French citizens, Pierre Bene and Jean Jeantet, over a contract for the sale of a ship. Bene had agreed to sell Jeantet a ship for a certain price, but Jeantet refused to pay the full amount. Bene then sued Jeantet in a French court, and the court ruled in favor of Bene. Jeantet then appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States, arguing that the French court had no jurisdiction over the case. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bene, holding that the French court had jurisdiction over the case. The Court reasoned that the contract was made in France, and that the parties had agreed to be bound by the laws of France. The Court also held that the French court had jurisdiction over the case because the parties had agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the French court. The Court's decision in Bene v. Jeantet established the principle that foreign courts have jurisdiction over contracts made in their own countries, even if the parties are citizens of another country. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then, and is still an important part of international law today.

In the case of BENE v. JEANTET, Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He believed that the court had misinterpreted precedent set by prior cases and failed to properly consider relevant facts when making its ruling. In particular, Scalia argued that while it is true that an individual may not be held liable for damages caused by another person’s negligence if they are unaware of any potential risks associated with their actions, this does not mean they can never be held responsible for such damages. Rather, liability depends on whether or not there was reasonable care taken to prevent harm from occurring; if so then liability could still exist even without knowledge of risk factors being present at the time of action. Ultimately, Scalia concluded his dissent by stating his belief that Jeantet should have been found liable due to her failure to exercise reasonable care in preventing injury or damage from occurring as a result of her actions.