In the case of Bigelow v. Old Dominion Copper Mining and Smelting Co., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bigelow, reversing a lower court's decision. The dispute centered around stock transactions where Bigelow had sold shares to Old Dominion without disclosing that he was acting as an agent for another party who owned the stocks. When this undisclosed principal failed to deliver the stocks, Old Dominion sued Bigelow for damages. The lower court held him liable on grounds that his failure to disclose his agency relationship constituted fraud. However, upon appeal, the Supreme Court disagreed with this interpretation of law and reversed it by stating that non-disclosure did not amount to fraud unless there was a duty or obligation to disclose such information which wasn't present here since both parties were dealing at arm’s length and no fiduciary relationship existed between them. Therefore, they concluded that while full disclosure is always commendable in business dealings; its absence does not necessarily constitute actionable deceit unless there is an existing legal duty mandating such disclosure.

In the dissenting opinion for Bigelow v. Old Dominion Copper Mining and Smelting Co., Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that the majority's decision to award damages based on speculative future profits was flawed. He contended that such an approach could lead to unjust enrichment of plaintiffs who may not have actually suffered any real losses or damages, as it is impossible to accurately predict future business profits with certainty. Furthermore, he believed this ruling would set a dangerous precedent by encouraging speculative lawsuits and potentially deterring legitimate business activities due to fear of excessive damage awards in litigation cases. Therefore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of how damages should be calculated in cases involving interference with contractual relations.