In the case of McCabe & Steen Construction Company v. Wilson in 1907, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with deciding on a dispute involving contract law and property rights. The plaintiff, McCabe & Steen Construction Company, had entered into a contract to construct an irrigation canal for defendant Wilson's land but failed to complete it within the agreed time frame due to unforeseen difficulties. As such, Wilson refused payment arguing that he suffered damages as a result of their delay. In response, McCabe & Steen sued for breach of contract seeking compensation for work done up until they stopped construction. The court ruled in favor of Wilson stating that while there were unexpected challenges during construction which caused delays; these did not absolve McCabe & Steen from fulfilling their contractual obligations within the stipulated timeline or give them right to claim payment without completion as per agreement terms. Therefore, any losses incurred by them due to stopping work prematurely were deemed self-inflicted and not recoverable under law.

In the dissenting opinion for McCabe & Steen Construction Company v. Wilson, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of the law and an overreach of judicial power. He contended that it was not within the Court's purview to decide on matters related to business contracts unless there were clear indications of fraud or illegality involved. In this case, he believed that no such evidence existed and thus, it should have been left in hands of lower courts or arbitration as per contract terms between parties involved. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential negative implications this ruling could have on future cases involving contractual disputes by setting a precedent where Supreme Court intervenes unnecessarily into private agreements.