In the case of Dunlop & Co. v. Ball, a dispute arose between two parties over an unpaid debt and whether or not it was subject to interest payments. The plaintiff, Dunlop & Co., argued that they had loaned money to the defendant, Ball, with an agreement for him to pay back both principal and interest on the loan at a later date. However, when payment came due Ball refused to make any additional payments beyond what he owed in principal alone; thus prompting this lawsuit from Dunlop & Co.. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Dunlop & Co., finding that there was indeed an agreement between them which included provisions for repayment of both principle and interest on the loan amount as well as damages incurred by their failure to do so. This ruling established precedent affirming that contracts must be honored according to their terms regardless if one party is unwilling or unable fulfill its obligations under said contract.

In the case of Dunlop & Co. v. Ball, Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should not have granted an injunction to prevent Mr. Ball from selling goods made by another company without their permission or consent. He believed that such an action would be too restrictive and could lead to monopolies, as well as stifle competition and innovation in the marketplace. Furthermore, he argued that it was up to Congress alone to decide whether or not certain activities were illegal and thus subject to injunctions; therefore, this decision should have been left up to them rather than being decided by a court of law. Ultimately, Chief Justice Marshall felt that granting such broad powers over trade practices would be detrimental for society at large due its potential for abuse and lack of accountability on behalf of those who held power over these decisions