In the case of Greenport Basin & Construction Company v. United States, 1922, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving maritime law and contracts with the federal government. The Greenport Basin & Construction Company had entered into a contract with the U.S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation to build several ships for World War I efforts but failed to deliver them by agreed deadlines due to labor strikes and material shortages. The company sought additional compensation from the government for these delays under an escalation clause in their contract that allowed adjustments based on increased costs of production. The court held that while such clauses were generally valid, they did not apply when delays resulted from factors within control of contractors like labor disputes or poor management decisions rather than changes in market conditions as intended by such provisions. Therefore, it denied Greenport's claim for extra payment because its failure was due more to internal issues than external economic forces beyond its control.

In the dissenting opinion for Greenport Basin & Construction Company v. United States, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision that a contract between a private company and the U.S. government could be terminated without any liability on part of the government. He argued that such an interpretation was contrary to established principles of contract law and would lead to unjust results by allowing one party (the government) to unilaterally terminate contracts without consequences. Furthermore, he contended that this ruling undermined confidence in contractual agreements with the federal government as it suggested they could be arbitrarily ended at will by one side only - something which is fundamentally unfair and against basic tenets of justice.