In the 1913 case of Detroit Steel Cooperage Company v. Sistersville Brewing Company, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract for goods that were not yet manufactured could be considered valid under bankruptcy law. The Sistersville Brewing Company had ordered steel barrels from Detroit Steel Cooperage but went bankrupt before they received them. The brewing company argued that because the barrels were not yet made at the time of their bankruptcy filing, they should not be included in their assets and thus would not have to pay for them. However, Detroit Steel argued that since there was a binding contract in place, it should still apply regardless of whether or not production had started on the items. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Detroit Steel Cooperage Co., stating that even though manufacturing hadn't begun when Sistersville declared bankruptcy, this did not negate their contractual obligation to purchase said goods once produced as per agreement terms prior to insolvency declaration.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Detroit Steel Cooperage Company v. Sistersville Brewing Company argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles of contract law. The justice contended that there was a clear agreement between both parties, as evidenced by their conduct and correspondence over time, which should be legally binding. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constituted acceptance under contract law, arguing it did not require explicit acknowledgment from one party to another but could be inferred from actions taken in line with fulfilling contractual obligations. Furthermore, they believed that any ambiguity about terms or conditions should have been resolved through further proceedings at a lower court level rather than dismissing the claim outright.