In the case of Dahnke-Walker Milling Company v. Bondurant, 1921, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dahnke-Walker Milling Company. The dispute arose when Bondurant sold wheat to Dahnke-Walker under a contract that stipulated any disputes would be settled by arbitration in New York. When a disagreement occurred over the quality of wheat delivered, instead of adhering to their agreement and proceeding with arbitration in New York, Bondurant sued for breach of contract in Kentucky state court where he won his claim. However, on appeal to the Supreme Court it was held that since both parties had agreed upon an exclusive method (arbitration) for resolving disputes arising from their contractual relationship - they were bound by this agreement and could not resort to litigation as an alternative means for resolution unless such provision is voided or waived mutually.

In the dissenting opinion for Dahnke-Walker Milling Company v. Bondurant, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's interpretation of contract law and its application to this case. He argued that a contract should not be voided simply because it was made under duress or undue influence unless there is clear evidence of such coercion. In his view, the plaintiff had willingly entered into an agreement with the defendant and later regretted it due to unfavorable market conditions; however, this did not constitute grounds for nullifying their agreement. Furthermore, he contended that if every business transaction influenced by external factors were deemed invalid, then nearly all contracts would be unenforceable as they are often shaped by various pressures and constraints in reality. Therefore, he believed that upholding contractual obligations was crucial for maintaining commercial stability and predictability.