In the case of National Equipment Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of National Equipment Rental (NER). The dispute arose when NER sued Szukhent for breach of a lease agreement on farming equipment. A clause in their contract stated that any legal notices could be served to an agent located in New York City, regardless of where the lessees resided or did business. When Szukhent failed to pay rent and maintain insurance as per the agreement, NER attempted to serve notice through this designated agent but was met with resistance from Szukhents who argued it violated Michigan law requiring direct service within state boundaries. The court held that private parties can freely designate by contract an agent for receipt of process without violating due process rights under Fourteenth Amendment so long as it is reasonable and just according to traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. This decision upheld freedom-of-contract principles while also acknowledging practical realities faced by businesses operating across state lines.

In the dissenting opinion for National Equipment Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent et al., Justice Black disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a clause in a lease agreement that allowed service of process on an agent located far from where the lessees lived and did business. He argued that this was not only inconvenient but also potentially unfair to defendants who might have difficulty defending themselves due to distance or cost. Furthermore, he contended that it violated traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice because it placed undue burden on one party over another in legal proceedings. Justice Black believed such clauses could be used by corporations as tools of oppression against less powerful individuals or small businesses, thereby undermining principles of fairness and equality before law.