In the case of Globe Refining Company v. Landa Cotton Oil Company in 1902, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over a contract for oil refining machinery. The Landa Cotton Oil Company had contracted with Globe Refining to purchase and install certain machinery but later refused to pay because they claimed that the equipment did not meet their expectations or contractual specifications. The court held that if there was no fraud involved and both parties were equally capable of judging the quality of goods, then it is up to them to inspect and accept or reject those goods before purchasing them. In this case, since Landa had accepted delivery without complaint, they could not later refuse payment based on dissatisfaction with performance. Therefore, Globe was entitled to recover damages for breach of contract from Landa.

In the dissenting opinion for Globe Refining Company v. Landa Cotton Oil Company, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the contract between both parties. He argued that there was no ambiguity in their agreement and it should be interpreted as a whole rather than dissected into separate parts. According to him, this would mean that Globe Refining Co., having failed to deliver oil as agreed upon, had breached its contractual obligations and thus owed damages to Landa Cotton Oil Co. Furthermore, he believed that these damages were not limited by any stipulation in the contract but should instead reflect actual losses suffered by Landa due to Globe's failure to fulfill its part of their agreement.