In the case of Boston and Montana Consolidated Copper and Silver Mining Company v. Chile Gold Mining Company, 1902, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract for mining rights in Chile was enforceable under American law. The Boston and Montana Consolidated Copper and Silver Mining Company (Boston & Montana) had entered into an agreement with the Chile Exploration Company to mine copper in certain areas within Chile. However, when it came time to pay for these rights, Boston & Montana refused on grounds that they were not legally obligated to do so because their agreement violated public policy as well as laws of both countries involved. The court ruled against Boston & Montana stating that there is no rule which denies enforcement of contracts made abroad simply because they are contrary to our views of sound policy or morality unless such contracts violate positive law or are prejudicial to recognized public interests. Therefore, even though some aspects might be considered illegal by either country's standards if performed domestically; this does not necessarily make them unenforceable internationally where different rules may apply.

In the dissenting opinion for Boston and Montana Consolidated Copper and Silver Mining Company v. Chile Gold Mining Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Chile Gold Mining Company was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant errors made by the trial court which should have been rectified on appeal. They disagreed with how evidence had been interpreted, arguing instead that Boston and Montana Consolidated Copper and Silver Mining Co., not Chile Gold, held rightful ownership over certain mining properties due to their prior possession of them under U.S law. Furthermore, they felt that international law principles regarding property rights had also been misapplied by both the trial court and Supreme Court majority. Ultimately, these justices contended that justice would have better served if a new trial were ordered so as to correct these perceived mistakes.