The U.S. Supreme Court case Guerini Stone Co. v. P.J. Carlin Construction Co., 1915, revolved around a contract dispute between the two companies regarding payment for work completed on a construction project in Washington D.C.. The plaintiff, Guerini Stone Company, was subcontracted by the defendant, P.J. Carlin Construction Company to perform excavation and stone-laying work but was not paid fully due to alleged delays and poor quality of workmanship which led to financial losses for the defendant company. The court ruled in favor of Guerini Stone Co., stating that while there were indeed delays caused by them during initial stages of construction; however, these did not justify withholding full payment as their performance improved significantly later on and they fulfilled their contractual obligations satisfactorily overall. Furthermore, it was found that some delays were actually caused by factors outside both parties' control such as weather conditions or changes requested by architects involved in the project - thus could not be held against Guerini Stone Co. This ruling established an important precedent about how responsibility for delays should be assessed within contracts involving multiple parties where circumstances may change over time.

In the dissenting opinion for Guerini Stone Co. v. P.J. Carlin Construction Co., Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with established principles of contract law and unjustly penalized Guerini Stone Company for a delay caused by an unforeseen event beyond its control - a strike by its workers. He contended that when parties enter into a contract, they implicitly agree to bear certain risks associated with performance, including labor disputes which are common in construction projects. Therefore, he believed that it was unfair to hold Guerini responsible for delays resulting from such ordinary business risks without clear contractual language indicating this intention. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "time is of the essence" clause as automatically entitling Carlin to damages regardless of whether or not it suffered any actual harm due to delay in performance.