In the 1940 U.S. Supreme Court case Kloeb v. Armour & Company, Judge Kloeb sued Armour & Co., a meatpacking company, for damages due to an alleged breach of contract involving the sale and delivery of pork products. The lower court ruled in favor of Judge Kloeb but on appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed this decision stating that there was no enforceable contract between the parties as it lacked mutual assent - a key element required for contracts under Ohio law where both parties understand and agree upon essential terms. The Supreme Court affirmed this ruling by holding that while there may have been discussions about price per pound and quantity between Judge Kloeb's agent and representatives from Armour & Co., these did not constitute an agreement or understanding sufficient enough to form a binding contract. Without such explicit agreement on critical terms like exact quantities or specific prices, no legally enforceable promise existed according to established principles of contractual law.

In the case of Kloeb v. Armour & Company, there was a dissenting opinion that disagreed with the majority's decision to reverse and remand the case back to district court for further proceedings. The dissent argued that this action was unnecessary because all relevant facts had already been established in previous hearings, and no new evidence or arguments were likely to emerge from additional litigation. Furthermore, they contended that by sending it back down for retrial, the Supreme Court was essentially allowing an unwarranted second chance for one party at the expense of judicial efficiency and fairness towards other litigants waiting their turn before courts across America. They believed that once a lower court has made its determination based on substantial evidence presented during trial proceedings, such decisions should be respected unless clear errors have occurred affecting outcomes significantly; otherwise it undermines confidence in our legal system overall.