In the case of George N. Pierce Company v. Wells, Fargo & Company (1914), the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving transportation charges for goods shipped by rail from New York to California. The George N. Pierce Company had contracted with Wells Fargo to transport its goods at a specific rate but later discovered that another company was being charged less for similar services. They sued Wells Fargo for overcharging them and won in lower courts, which ordered refunds based on the difference between what they paid and what others were charged. However, upon reaching the Supreme Court, it was determined that there was no violation of law or contract by Wells Fargo as rates can vary depending on various factors such as volume discounts or special arrangements between shippers and carriers; thus not all customers are entitled to identical pricing structures under common carrier laws. The court held that while discrimination is prohibited among shippers who are similarly situated, differences in circumstances permit different treatment without violating any legal principles against unjust discrimination. Therefore, this ruling established an important precedent regarding price differentiation within commercial transactions involving common carriers like shipping companies or railways.

In the dissenting opinion for George N. Pierce Company v. Wells, Fargo & Company, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the contract and its application of legal principles to determine liability. He argued that there was no explicit agreement between parties about who would bear risk during transit; therefore, it should be assumed that risk remained with the seller until delivery was completed at destination as per common commercial practice. Furthermore, he contended that even if a different arrangement had been agreed upon implicitly or explicitly by both parties regarding transfer of property title and associated risks before completion of delivery, such an arrangement could not absolve either party from their obligations under law in case they failed to fulfill their respective duties properly leading to damage or loss.