In the case of Kidd, Dater and Price Company v. Musselman Grocer Company in 1909, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over an alleged breach of contract involving canned goods. The plaintiff, Kidd, Dater and Price Company (KD&P), sued Musselman Grocer for refusing to accept delivery of canned corn that KD&P claimed was within the specifications agreed upon in their contract. However, Musselman argued that they had rejected the shipment because it did not meet quality standards specified in their agreement. The court ruled against KD&P stating that although there were no explicit terms regarding quality in their written agreement; however, given industry norms and previous dealings between both parties where high-quality goods were expected and delivered - this created an implied term or understanding about product quality within their contractual relationship. Therefore when KD&P provided inferior products which deviated from these expectations without any prior notice or negotiation on changing such terms - it constituted a breach of contract on part of KD&P allowing Musselman to rightfully reject those goods.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Kidd, Dater and Price Company v. Musselman Grocer Company argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Kidd, Dater and Price was incorrect. The dissent contended that there were significant errors made by the trial court which should have led to a reversal of its judgment. Specifically, it was believed that evidence presented at trial had been improperly admitted or excluded by the judge presiding over proceedings. This included testimony related to alleged fraudulent activities carried out by representatives of Musselman Grocer Company as well as documents pertaining to their business transactions with other entities. Furthermore, it was suggested that instructions given to jurors regarding how they ought not consider certain pieces of evidence when making their determination were misleading and prejudicial towards Kidd, Dater and Price's defense strategy.