In the case of Grant Brothers Construction Co. v. United States (1913), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government, upholding its right to terminate a contract with Grant Brothers Construction Company for construction work on Panama Canal locks. The company had entered into an agreement with the government that included a clause allowing either party to end it at any time upon giving 30 days' notice. When disagreements arose over payment rates and working conditions, leading to strikes by workers, the government invoked this termination clause and ended their contract with Grant Brothers. The company sued for breach of contract but lost both in lower courts and eventually before the Supreme Court as well. The court held that since both parties agreed upon this termination clause during formation of their contractual relationship, there was no violation or breach when one party exercised its rights under those terms.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Grant Brothers Construction Co. v. United States argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider the full scope and intent of Congress when they enacted legislation related to public works contracts. The dissent believed that Congress intended for contractors on government projects to be paid promptly, not only for their own benefit but also as a means of ensuring efficient completion of public works projects by maintaining good relations between contractors and laborers. Therefore, any interpretation or application of these laws should prioritize prompt payment over other considerations such as technicalities regarding contract language or procedures followed by government officials involved in administering these payments. By focusing too much on procedural details rather than broader policy goals, the majority had effectively undermined Congressional intent and potentially jeopardized future public works projects.