The College Point Boat Corporation v. United States case in 1924 revolved around a dispute over the interpretation of a contract between the two parties. The College Point Boat Corporation had entered into an agreement with the U.S government to construct submarine chasers during World War I, but due to delays and changes in specifications by the Navy Department, they were unable to deliver on time. As such, they incurred additional costs which led them to seek compensation from the government for breach of contract. However, their claim was rejected by both lower courts and eventually reached Supreme Court where it was also dismissed. The court ruled that while there may have been delays caused by modifications requested by Navy Department officials, these did not constitute a breach as per terms of their agreement since it allowed for alterations or deviations from original plans without any obligation on part of government towards extra expenses incurred. Moreover, even if there had been breaches (which wasn't established), under Article III's "no damages" clause - no allowance would be made unless approved directly by Secretary of Navy himself; something that hadn't happened here either thus leaving no grounds for recovery.

In the dissenting opinion for College Point Boat Corporation v. United States, it was argued that the government should not be allowed to terminate a contract without any liability simply because it is acting in its sovereign capacity. The dissent emphasized that when the government enters into commercial contracts, it waives its immunity and must be held accountable like any other contracting party. It was also pointed out that if such an interpretation were accepted, then no contractor would feel safe doing business with the government as they could cancel contracts at will without repercussions. This would ultimately harm public interest by discouraging private entities from entering into agreements with the state due to fear of arbitrary cancellations and losses incurred thereof.