In the case of Chattanooga National Building and Loan Association v. Denson, 1902, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Chattanooga National Building and Loan Association. The dispute arose when Denson defaulted on a loan from the association which was secured by real estate property as collateral. After defaulting, Denson filed for bankruptcy to discharge his debts but did not include this particular debt in his filing due to an error made by his attorney. When he later tried to amend his filing to include this debt, it was denied because it had been more than six months since he initially filed for bankruptcy - a time limit set by federal law at that time. The court held that despite the mistake made by Denson's attorney during initial filings, there were no provisions under existing laws allowing amendments after six months from original filing date even if such amendment is meant correct an oversight or omission caused through inadvertence or mistake. Therefore, although sympathetic towards Mr.Denson’s situation they could not legally grant him relief sought.

In the dissenting opinion for Chattanooga National Building and Loan Association v. Denson, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's view that a contract could be invalidated due to public policy concerns if it was deemed oppressive or unjust. He argued that courts should not have such power as it would lead to uncertainty in contractual relationships and undermine the principle of freedom of contract. According to him, only legislatures had the authority to declare certain contracts void on grounds of public policy because they were elected by people and accountable to them. He further contended that even if courts had this power, they should exercise it sparingly and cautiously since what might seem unfair or harsh at first glance may actually reflect a fair bargain considering all circumstances surrounding its formation.