In the case of Hardin-Wyandot Lighting Company v. Village of Upper Sandusky, 1919, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over a contract between a village and an electric company. The village had entered into an agreement with the lighting company to provide street lights for ten years. However, after five years, they decided to terminate this contract and install their own electrical system instead. The lighting company sued on grounds that it was unlawful for them to break their contractual obligations before its expiration date. The court ruled in favor of the Village of Upper Sandusky stating that municipalities have inherent power related to public welfare which includes providing utilities such as electricity. It held that while contracts are generally binding under law, when it comes to matters concerning public interest or safety (like provision of utilities), municipalities can alter or abolish these agreements if necessary for public good even if it results in financial loss for private companies involved.

In the dissenting opinion for Hardin-Wyandot Lighting Company v. Village of Upper Sandusky, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a municipal ordinance requiring the lighting company to remove its poles and wires from village streets infringed upon contractual rights. The dissenting justices believed that when the village granted permission for these installations, an implied contract was formed between both parties which should be respected by law. They contended that this contract could not be unilaterally altered or terminated without due process or just compensation under constitutional protection of property rights. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority's view that such ordinances were purely regulatory measures within local police power rather than contractual obligations subject to constitutional scrutiny.