In Kramer v. Caribbean Mills, Inc., the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over payment for services rendered under an agreement between two parties. The petitioner, Kramer, had entered into a contract with the respondent company to find and purchase cotton linters in foreign markets on their behalf. In return, he was to receive 5% of the total cost as commission. However, after fulfilling his part of the deal by purchasing $1 million worth of cotton linters from Pakistan and Iran for Caribbean Mills Inc., they refused to pay him his due commission arguing that it violated Texas law which prohibited payments made in connection with obtaining or carrying out contracts involving foreign governments without first registering as a 'foreign agent'. The court ruled in favor of Kramer stating that there was no evidence suggesting any illegal activities were involved while procuring these contracts nor did it involve any political contributions or influence peddling which would necessitate registration as per Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Therefore, Caribbean Mills' refusal to pay based on this ground was unjustified.

In the dissenting opinion for Kramer v. Caribbean Mills, Inc., Justice Fortas argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles of contract law. He contended that a party should not be allowed to escape its contractual obligations simply because it made an error in judgment when entering into the agreement. In this case, he believed that Kramer had willingly entered into a contract with Caribbean Mills and should therefore be held accountable for fulfilling his end of the deal, regardless of whether or not he later regretted his decision due to unforeseen circumstances. Furthermore, Justice Fortas expressed concern about how such a ruling could potentially undermine confidence in contracts if parties were permitted to back out whenever they felt disadvantaged by their own miscalculations or misjudgments.