In the case of Kener, Administrator of Kener v. La Grange Mills in 1913, the United States Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a contract for future delivery of cotton could be considered valid if it did not specify an exact quantity to be delivered. The plaintiff argued that such a contract should be deemed invalid as it lacked certainty and definiteness - key elements required for any enforceable agreement. However, the defendant contended that since both parties had acted on good faith and there was mutual understanding about approximate quantities involved based on past dealings between them, this constituted sufficient grounds to uphold the contract's validity. The court ruled in favor of La Grange Mills (defendant), holding that even though no specific amount was mentioned in their agreement with Kener (plaintiff), other factors like previous transactions between them provided enough context to infer reasonable estimates about intended quantities. Therefore, despite its apparent lack of precision regarding quantity terms, their arrangement still met essential criteria necessary for contractual obligations under common law principles.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Kener v. La Grange Mills argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established legal principles regarding contract law and property rights. The dissent contended that the agreement between Kener and La Grange Mills constituted a valid contract, which should have been honored by both parties. They believed that there was sufficient evidence to show an intention on both sides to enter into this agreement, with each party providing something of value in exchange for what they received - a fundamental element of any enforceable contract. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of property rights in this context; arguing instead that these rights were not absolute but subject to limitations imposed by contractual obligations voluntarily entered into by their owners.