In the 1959 case J. Aron & Company, Inc., v. Mississippi Shipping Company, Inc., the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract for future delivery of goods could be considered a "maritime contract" under maritime law and thus fall within federal jurisdiction. The dispute arose when J. Aron & Co contracted to sell soybeans to Mississippi Shipping Co for future delivery on board ship at New Orleans; however, due to market fluctuations in price before shipment occurred, disputes over payment ensued between both parties. The court held that this type of agreement did not constitute a maritime contract because it involved the sale of goods rather than any service related to navigation or commerce on navigable waters - which is what typically defines maritime contracts under admiralty law. Therefore, such cases should be adjudicated by state courts instead of federal ones as they do not fall within their exclusive jurisdiction over 'admiralty and maritime' matters according to Article III Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution.

In the dissenting opinion for J. Aron & Company, Inc., v. Mississippi Shipping Company, Inc., Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Section 4(5) of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). He argued that this section does not require a party to be in default before another can seek an order compelling arbitration. Instead, he believed it simply provides one method by which parties may secure such an order and does not preclude other methods available under general principles of contract law or equity. Furthermore, he contended that even if Section 4(5) were read as requiring default as a prerequisite to obtaining an order compelling arbitration, there was sufficient evidence here to find that Mississippi Shipping had defaulted on its obligation under their agreement by refusing to arbitrate when requested by J.Aron & Co.