In the case of Blumenstock Brothers Advertising Agency v. Curtis Publishing Company, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Curtis Publishing Company. The dispute arose when Blumenstock Brothers, an advertising agency, claimed that they were entitled to a commission for advertisements placed in magazines published by Curtis Publishing. However, these ads were not directly secured by them but rather through another agent who had been employed by them and later left their employment to work independently while still placing ads with Curtis on behalf of his clients. The court held that since the other agent was no longer under contract or control from Blumenstock Brothers at the time he placed those ads with Curtis, they could not claim any commissions on those transactions.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Blumenstock Brothers Advertising Agency v. Curtis Publishing Company argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider the nature and purpose of advertising contracts. The dissent emphasized that such contracts are not merely for space in a publication, but also for the goodwill associated with being featured in a reputable outlet. Therefore, when an advertiser is denied this benefit due to no fault of their own - as happened when Curtis Publishing Company refused to publish Blumenstock Brothers' advertisements despite having a contract - they have suffered real damages beyond just lost ad space. This view suggests that advertisers should be able to recover these additional losses from publishers who breach their agreements without justification.