In the case of Export and Import Lumber Company v. Port Banga Lumber Company, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract for the sale of lumber violated antitrust laws. The plaintiff, Export and Import Lumber Co., had entered into an agreement to purchase all its requirements for certain types of lumber from defendant, Port Banga Lumber Co., who in turn agreed not to sell these types of lumber to anyone else within a specified region. When disputes arose over pricing and delivery terms under this contract, litigation ensued leading up to this appeal at the Supreme Court level. The court ruled that such exclusive dealing arrangements did not inherently violate antitrust laws unless they unreasonably restrained trade or tended towards creating a monopoly in any line of commerce. In applying this standard, it found no violation here as there were many other sources available for obtaining similar kinds of lumber both inside and outside the restricted area covered by their agreement; thus competition was not significantly impeded nor was there any danger posed towards monopolization.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Export and Import Lumber Company v. Port Banga Lumber Company argued that the majority's decision failed to properly consider the nature of contract law, particularly with regard to its application in international trade disputes. The dissent contended that a strict interpretation of contractual obligations was necessary for maintaining stability and predictability in commercial transactions, especially those involving parties from different countries. They believed that by allowing an exception based on unforeseen circumstances (force majeure), as the majority did, would undermine this principle and potentially create uncertainty within international business dealings. Furthermore, they disagreed with how force majeure was applied in this particular case; arguing it should not be used as a blanket excuse for non-performance but rather evaluated on a case-by-case basis considering all relevant factors including efforts made by party claiming force majeure to fulfill their obligation despite adverse conditions.