In the 1908 case of Bowers Hydraulic Dredging Company v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a contract between the U.S. government and Bowers Hydraulic Dredging Company could be considered complete despite not fulfilling all stipulated conditions due to unforeseen circumstances. The company had been contracted by the government for dredging operations in New York Harbor but was unable to finish within the agreed timeframe because of unexpected hard rock formations that were not initially apparent or included in their agreement. The court ruled against Bowers, stating that such risks are inherent in contracts and should have been accounted for during negotiations before signing an agreement with fixed terms and conditions. Therefore, even though they couldn't fulfill their obligations due to these unforeseen obstacles, it didn't absolve them from liability under their contract with the government.

In the dissenting opinion for Bowers Hydraulic Dredging Company v. United States, it was argued that the government did not have a valid claim against Bowers because they had willingly entered into an agreement with them knowing their capabilities and limitations. The justice believed that since the government knew about potential delays due to weather conditions or equipment failure when entering into this contract, they should bear some responsibility for these risks rather than placing all of it on Bowers. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "excusable delay," arguing that such term should include any unforeseen circumstances beyond human control including adverse weather conditions which could affect dredging operations. He also pointed out inconsistencies in how different clauses within contracts were interpreted by courts and called for more uniformity in interpretations to ensure fairness and predictability in contractual relationships between parties.