The Commercial Molasses Corp. v. New York Tank Barge Corp., 1941, is a Supreme Court case that revolved around the issue of contractual obligations and liability for damages incurred during the performance of said contract. The Commercial Molasses Corporation had chartered a barge from the New York Tank Barge Corporation to transport molasses but due to an alleged negligence on part of the latter's employees, some molasses was lost in transit. The court held that under maritime law, which governed this transaction, it was not necessary for there to be privity (direct relationship) between parties involved in order for one party to sue another over breach or non-performance of contract terms; thus allowing Commercial Molasses Corp. to seek compensation from NY Tank Barge Corp.. However, since their charter agreement contained a clause exempting NY Tank Barge from any liability arising out of its own negligence unless expressly stated otherwise by them - which wasn't done here - they were not liable for losses suffered by Commercial Molasses.

The dissenting opinion in the Commercial Molasses Corp. v. New York Tank Barge Corp case argued that the majority's decision to hold the charterer liable for damages was incorrect, as it contradicted established maritime law principles and practices. The dissent emphasized that under a demise or bareboat charter, control of the vessel is transferred from owner to charterer who then becomes responsible for its operation and any resulting damage. However, in this case, they believed there was no such transfer of control; hence liability should remain with the owner not shifted onto an innocent third party (the molasses company). They also pointed out inconsistencies between this ruling and previous court decisions where similar circumstances had led to different outcomes - specifically cases where cargo owners were not held accountable for damages caused by vessels carrying their goods.