In the case of Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company v. Hardwick Farmers Elevator Company (1912), the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over freight charges. The railway company sued Hardwick for unpaid freight charges on grain shipments that were delivered to them by mistake. However, Hardwick argued they had no obligation to pay because they did not order or receive any benefit from these shipments and returned them immediately upon discovery of the error. The court ruled in favor of Hardwick, stating that under common law principles, a person who receives unsolicited goods has no duty to return them or pay for their transportation unless he chooses to keep them. Therefore, since there was no contract between the parties and as long as one party does not unjustly enrich itself at another's expense without making restitution for its fair value - which was not proven in this case - then it is free from liability.

In the dissenting opinion for the case between Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company and Hardwick Farmers Elevator Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold a railway company liable for damages caused by its failure to provide cars as per contract was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that this ruling failed to consider uncontrollable factors such as weather conditions or mechanical failures which could prevent timely delivery of services. They contended that while a railway company should strive to fulfill its contractual obligations, holding them strictly liable in all circumstances would be unfair and unjustifiable. Furthermore, they disagreed with the interpretation of 'reasonable time' used by the majority in determining liability. Instead of considering external factors affecting performance, they felt 'reasonable time' should only refer to an agreed-upon timeframe within normal operating conditions.