In the case of Morimura, Arai & Company v. Taback et al., 1928, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving an international trade contract. The Japanese company Morimura, Arai & Co had entered into a contract with American firm Taback to sell them silk goods. However, due to changes in market conditions and exchange rates that made the deal unprofitable for Morimura they sought to cancel it by invoking a force majeure clause in their agreement which allowed for cancellation under extraordinary circumstances beyond their control such as war or natural disaster. They argued that these economic changes were akin to such events and thus justified cancellation of the contract. The court disagreed with this interpretation ruling against Morimura stating that fluctuations in currency exchange rates are normal risks associated with international business transactions and do not constitute unforeseeable or uncontrollable events justifying invocation of force majeure clauses. This decision established important precedent regarding how courts interpret contractual obligations within international commerce especially concerning risk allocation between parties involved.

In the dissenting opinion for Morimura, Arai & Company v. Taback et al., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a California law requiring foreign corporations to designate an agent for service of process within the state as a condition of doing business there violated principles of international comity and fairness. The dissent contended that this requirement placed an undue burden on foreign businesses, potentially discouraging them from operating in California and thereby harming the state's economy. Furthermore, they asserted that such laws could lead to retaliatory measures by other countries against U.S.-based companies. They also questioned whether states had constitutional authority to impose such requirements on foreign entities without federal approval or oversight.