In the case of George A. Fuller Company v. McCloskey in 1912, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving contract law and construction costs. The George A. Fuller Company had entered into a contract with Mr. McCloskey to construct a building for him, but during the course of construction, additional work was required that wasn't initially included in their agreement. When completed, Fuller demanded payment for these extra services which amounted to $14,000 more than what was originally agreed upon; however, McCloskey refused to pay this amount arguing it exceeded their initial agreement's scope. The court held that if an owner orders changes or additions beyond what is stipulated in the original contract without agreeing on new terms regarding compensation for such alterations or additions beforehand then he must pay reasonable value thereof even though it exceeds the sum named in said original contract as total cost of all work covered thereby when completed according to its terms.

In the dissenting opinion for George A. Fuller Company v. McCloskey, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of McCloskey was incorrect because it failed to consider key aspects of contract law and interpretation. The dissenting justices believed that the original agreement between both parties did not explicitly state or imply that George A. Fuller Company would be responsible for any additional costs incurred due to changes in work conditions or unforeseen circumstances during construction projects undertaken by McCloskey on behalf of Fuller Company. They contended that such an obligation should not be inferred without clear evidence from the terms of their contract, which they found lacking in this case.