In the 1912 case of Deming v. Carlisle Packing Company, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over salmon fishing rights in Alaska's Karluk River. The plaintiff, Deming, claimed that he had exclusive rights to fish for salmon at his location on the river under an Alaskan law which granted such privileges based on prior use and occupation. However, the defendant company argued that this law was superseded by federal legislation which prohibited monopolies and exclusivity in fisheries within Alaska's waters. The court ruled in favor of Carlisle Packing Company stating that while local customs or laws could sometimes confer property rights not recognized by common law; these were subject to Congressional power when it came to territories like Alaska where Congress has plenary authority (full power). Therefore, any state or territorial laws granting exclusive fishing privileges were nullified by subsequent federal legislation prohibiting such monopolies.

In the dissenting opinion for Deming v. Carlisle Packing Company, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to properly consider and apply established principles of contract law. The dissent emphasized that a contract is an agreement between two parties, which should be enforced as agreed upon unless there are compelling reasons not to do so. In this case, they believed no such reasons existed. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constituted "reasonable" terms in a contract, arguing that reasonableness should be determined by considering all circumstances surrounding the formation and execution of the agreement rather than applying arbitrary standards or personal judgments about fairness or equity. Furthermore, they contended that if any ambiguity existed in interpreting contractual provisions regarding salmon packing operations at issue here - such as whether certain costs were included in price per case paid by buyer - then those ambiguities should have been resolved against party who drafted ambiguous language (i.e., seller), not against other party (buyer) who had less control over drafting process.