The case of JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Traffic Stream (BVI) Infrastructure Limited in 2001 revolved around the issue of arbitration clauses and their enforceability under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The dispute began when Traffic Stream, a British Virgin Islands corporation, defaulted on a loan from JPMorgan Chase Bank. The bank sued for breach of contract but Traffic Stream argued that an arbitration clause in their agreement required any disputes to be resolved through arbitration instead. However, this clause was part of an unsigned draft agreement rather than the final signed version which did not include it. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of JPMorgan Chase Bank stating that because there was no evidence indicating both parties agreed to arbitrate disputes as per FAA's requirement, the court could not compel them into arbitration based on an unsigned document.

The dissenting opinion in the case of JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Traffic Stream (BVI) Infrastructure Limited argued that the majority's decision to allow a creditor to unilaterally alter an arbitration agreement was fundamentally unfair and contrary to established principles of contract law. The dissent contended that such unilateral changes could potentially undermine the integrity and predictability of contractual relationships, which are essential for business operations. Furthermore, it was pointed out that allowing one party to change terms without mutual consent would create an imbalance in power dynamics within contractual agreements. This could lead creditors with more bargaining power exploiting this advantage over debtors who have less leverage or resources at their disposal. Therefore, according to the dissenting view, any alterations made should be based on mutual agreement between parties involved rather than being imposed by one side alone.