In Miller v. Tiffany, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute between two parties over an agreement to purchase and sell land in California. The plaintiff, Miller, had agreed to buy the property from Tiffany for $2,000 but failed to make payment on time. When he attempted to pay after the deadline had passed, Tiffany refused his offer and instead sold it to another party at a higher price. In its ruling, the court held that although Miller was not able to complete his purchase of the property within the specified timeframe due to circumstances beyond his control (namely delays caused by war), he should still be allowed relief as long as he could prove that he was ready and willing when given an opportunity before any other buyer entered into negotiations with Tiffany. Ultimately this decision established that contracts must be enforced even if one party is unable or prevented from fulfilling their obligations due solely external factors outside of their control such as war or natural disasters.

Justice Nelson wrote the dissenting opinion in Miller v. Tiffany, arguing that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written and not interpreted by the court. He argued that if one party had made an error in their agreement, they should bear the consequences of it rather than have it corrected by judicial interpretation. Furthermore, he argued that any attempt to interpret contracts would lead to uncertainty and confusion for businesses who rely on them for stability and security when entering into agreements with other parties. Justice Nelson also noted that allowing courts to interpret contracts could open up avenues of fraud or collusion which would undermine public confidence in contractual arrangements. Ultimately, he concluded that while mistakes may occur during negotiations or drafting of a contract, those errors must remain solely within the purview of those involved without interference from outside sources such as courts attempting to correct them through interpretation.