The U.S. Supreme Court case Flexner v. Farson et al., 1918, revolved around a dispute over the interpretation of an agreement between two parties involved in a business transaction. The plaintiff, Flexner, had sold his company to the defendants (Farson and partners), with part of the payment being deferred for later dates as per their contract. However, when it came time for these payments to be made, there was disagreement about whether interest should be included or not based on how the original contract was worded. The lower courts ruled in favor of Flexner that he was entitled to receive interest on these deferred payments from Farson's firm but this decision was reversed by higher court stating that no such provision existed in their agreement explicitly mentioning about any payable interests on delayed installments which led them towards ruling out any possibility of implied understanding regarding same matter too.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Flexner v. Farson et al., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which held that an Illinois corporation could not be sued in New York for a contract made and performed outside of New York, was incorrect. The dissenters believed this interpretation contradicted previous rulings by the Supreme Court on jurisdictional matters. They contended that corporations should be subject to lawsuits wherever they conduct business, regardless of where their headquarters are located or where contracts were signed or executed. This perspective emphasized fairness and equal treatment under law, arguing it is unjust for corporations to enjoy benefits from operating within a state without being accountable to its laws when disputes arise.