In the case of E.W. Bliss Company v. United States (1918), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the United States, upholding a lower court's decision that E.W. Bliss Company was liable for damages due to breach of contract with the government during World War I. The company had agreed to manufacture artillery shells for war efforts but failed to deliver them on time as per their agreement, causing significant inconvenience and financial loss to the government who had relied upon these supplies for its military operations overseas. The court held that even though there were no explicit provisions in their contract regarding penalties or damage payments for late delivery, it was implied by law that such obligations existed and hence could be enforced legally against E.W Bliss Co., thereby making them responsible for compensating any losses suffered by the government due to their non-compliance.

In the dissenting opinion for E.W. Bliss Company v. United States, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's interpretation of a contract between the company and government regarding payment for artillery shells produced during World War I. He argued that when interpreting contracts, courts should consider not only their explicit terms but also any implicit understandings or expectations between parties at the time they entered into an agreement. In this case, he believed that both parties understood and intended that shell prices would be adjusted based on actual production costs rather than remaining fixed as stated in writing. Therefore, he felt it was unjust to deny E.W Bliss Company additional compensation after its manufacturing expenses exceeded initial estimates due to unforeseen wartime conditions such as labor shortages and material price increases.