In the case of Cosmos Exploration Company v. Gray Eagle Oil Company in 1902, the US Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving oil drilling rights. The Cosmos Exploration Company had leased land for oil drilling from the owner, but later discovered that part of this land was already leased to Gray Eagle Oil Company by a previous owner. When Cosmos attempted to drill on this disputed area, Gray Eagle sued them for trespassing and won in lower courts. However, when appealed to the Supreme Court, it was determined that because both leases were made in good faith and without knowledge of each other's existence at their respective times of creation; neither party could be held as trespassers or wrongdoers against one another. Therefore, both companies should share access to the contested property based on their proportionate interests established through their original lease agreements with different owners.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Cosmos Exploration Company v. Gray Eagle Oil Company argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly interpret and apply existing contract law principles. The dissent believed that the agreement between Cosmos and Gray Eagle constituted a valid, enforceable contract under which both parties had clear obligations. They disagreed with the majority's view that there was insufficient consideration for this contract, arguing instead that mutual promises were exchanged by both parties - an essential element of any binding agreement. Furthermore, they contended that even if some terms were left open or ambiguous, these could be clarified through further negotiation or court interpretation without invalidating the entire agreement. In their view, dismissing such contracts as unenforceable would undermine commercial certainty and discourage business transactions.