In the 1892 case of National Tube Works Company v. Ballou, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of National Tube Works Company. The dispute arose when Ballou refused to pay for a shipment of iron tubes he had ordered from National Tube Works on grounds that they were not delivered within the agreed timeframe and thus breached their contract. However, it was found that there was no explicit agreement about time being an essential factor in their contract. Moreover, it was revealed that upon receiving the goods late, Ballou did not reject them but instead used them for his business purposes before refusing payment later on. Therefore, by accepting and using these goods without immediate complaint or rejection due to delay in delivery indicated acceptance under law despite any breach by delay according to Justice Brewer who delivered the opinion of court.

The dissenting opinion in the case of National Tube Works Company v. Ballou argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on foreign manufacturers was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles established by the court. The dissent pointed out that while it is within Congress' power to impose taxes, this should not be used as a means to unfairly burden or discriminate against foreign businesses. It further contended that such discriminatory taxation goes against free trade principles and could potentially lead to retaliatory measures from other countries, thereby harming American businesses in return. Moreover, it emphasized that any form of protectionism should come from tariffs rather than internal revenue laws which are meant for raising revenue rather than regulating commerce.