In the case of Hercules Incorporated, et al. v. United States in 1995, the Supreme Court ruled against Hercules and other chemical companies that had been contracted by the U.S government during the Vietnam War to produce Agent Orange - a toxic herbicide used for deforestation purposes. The companies sought reimbursement from the federal government for damages they paid out in lawsuits brought forth by veterans who suffered health issues due to exposure to Agent Orange. They argued that their contracts with the government implied an indemnification agreement which would protect them from such liabilities. However, Justice David Souter delivered a unanimous decision stating there was no explicit or implicit promise made by the U.S Government within these contracts to cover any potential legal liabilities incurred as a result of producing this chemical compound.

In the dissenting opinion for Hercules Incorporated, et al. v. United States, 1995 case, it was argued that the majority's interpretation of the contract between Hercules and the government was incorrect. The dissent believed that when interpreting a contract with ambiguous terms, one should look at how both parties understood those terms during negotiations and performance of the agreement rather than applying an objective standard as done by majority justices. They also disagreed with majority’s view on risk allocation in contracts arguing that such risks are typically borne by contractors not government unless explicitly stated otherwise in agreements which wasn't so here according to them. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies in court's application of precedent cases while deciding this matter leading to their disagreement with final judgement.