In the case of Grimes Dry Goods Company v. Malcolm, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Malcolm. The dispute arose when a shipment of goods was damaged during transportation by a railway company from New York to Alabama. The consignee refused to accept and pay for the damaged goods, leading to legal action by Grimes Dry Goods Company who argued that they had fulfilled their part of the contract by delivering the goods to the carrier in good condition. However, it was found that there were no specific terms in their agreement stating that risk would pass on delivery to carrier or upon receipt at destination point. Therefore, under common law principles applicable at that time (1896), title and risk remained with seller until buyer received and accepted them unless otherwise agreed upon between parties involved explicitly or implicitly through trade customs or course dealing etc., which wasn't proven here either way conclusively enough according court's opinion hence ruling against plaintiff-appellant i.e., Grimes Dry Goods Co.

The dissenting opinion in the Grimes Dry Goods Company v. Malcolm case argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and interpretations of contract law. The dissenting justices believed that a party should not be held liable for damages if they were unable to fulfill their contractual obligations due to unforeseen circumstances beyond their control, such as natural disasters or other acts of God. They contended that this principle should also apply when a government action makes it impossible for one party to meet its contractual obligations, even if those actions are lawful and justified. In this particular case, they felt that Grimes Dry Goods Company should not be held responsible for failing to deliver goods during a quarantine imposed by health authorities because it had no control over these events.