In the 1930 case of Ensten et al. v. Simon Ascher & Company, Incorporated, the United States Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a contract for the sale of goods could be enforced if it did not specify a delivery date or price. The plaintiffs, Ensten and others, had entered into an agreement with Simon Ascher & Co., Inc., in which they agreed to sell certain quantities of cotton linters (a byproduct from ginning cotton). However, no specific delivery date or price per unit was included in their agreement. The court held that under Section 2-305(1) of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), open terms such as these do not necessarily render a contract unenforceable. Instead, reasonable time and price should be inferred based on market conditions at the time performance is due. This ruling established important precedent regarding "open term" contracts within U.S commercial law - affirming that lack of specificity does not automatically invalidate them.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Ensten et al. v. Simon Ascher & Company, Incorporated argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling dismissing the plaintiff's claim was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were sufficient grounds for a reasonable jury to find in favor of the plaintiffs and therefore, they should have been allowed their day in court. They disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of negligence law, arguing it was too narrow and failed to consider all relevant factors such as foreseeability and proximate cause which could potentially establish liability on part of Simon Ascher & Company Inc., especially given its duty towards maintaining safety standards at work premises where accidents like this one occurred leading to injuries or death among workers employed by them.