In the 1921 case of Exporters of Manufacturers Products, Inc. v. Butterworth-Judson Company, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over an alleged breach of contract involving two companies engaged in international trade. The plaintiff, Exporters and Manufacturers Products Inc., claimed that Butterworth-Judson Company had violated their agreement by failing to deliver goods as promised under their contract terms. The defendant argued that they were unable to fulfill the order due to unforeseen circumstances beyond their control which made it impossible for them to perform their contractual obligations - a legal concept known as "force majeure". However, upon review, the court found no evidence supporting this claim and ruled in favor of Exporters and Manufacturers Products Inc., stating that failure on part of Butterworth-Judson Company was not justified under force majeure clause since there was no proof showing impossibility or impracticability in performing its duties.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Exporters of Manufacturers Products, Inc. v. Butterworth-Judson Company argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Exporters was incorrect because it failed to consider important aspects of contract law and business practices. The dissent believed that there had been no breach of contract by Exporters as they had acted within their rights under the terms agreed upon with Butterworth-Judson Company. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of 'good faith' in business transactions, arguing that this should not be used as a basis for determining contractual obligations or breaches thereof. They also felt that imposing such an obligation would unduly restrict commercial freedom and could potentially lead to unfair outcomes for businesses acting within their legal rights.