In the 1890 Supreme Court case Lent v. Tillson, a dispute arose over a contract for construction work on the United States Post Office and Sub-Treasury Building in Boston. The plaintiff, Lent, claimed that he had been wrongfully dismissed from his role as superintendent of construction by Tillson before the completion of the project. He argued that this dismissal was not only unjust but also violated their contractual agreement which stated he would remain employed until its completion unless removed by mutual consent or due to misconduct or incompetence. The court ruled in favor of Tillson stating that while there was indeed an employment contract between both parties, it did not specifically guarantee Lent's continued employment until project completion without exception. Rather, it allowed for his removal under reasonable circumstances such as those presented by Tillson - namely inefficiency and neglect of duty on part of Lent. This ruling set important precedents regarding interpretation and enforcement of contracts within American law; emphasizing that all terms must be explicitly stated within them if they are to be legally binding.

In the dissenting opinion for Lent v. Tillson, 1890, it was argued that the court majority had erred in its interpretation of a New York statute regarding street improvements and assessments. The dissenting justices believed that the law did not authorize an assessment on property owners for more than their properties' increased value due to such improvements. They contended that any excess cost should be borne by the municipality as a whole rather than individual property owners who may not derive additional benefit from these enhancements beyond their assessed increase in property value. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view about how to determine this increased value or special benefit conferred upon each lot or parcel of land affected by public improvement projects under this statute.