In the case of Olson et al., Co-Partners, Doing Business Under The Firm Name Of Olson Bros. Or Olson & Olson v. United States Spruce Production Corporation (1924), the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over timber contracts during World War I. The Olsons had entered into an agreement to cut and deliver spruce logs for the U.S. Spruce Production Corporation, a government entity established to ensure adequate wood supply for airplane construction during wartime. However, after delivering only part of their agreed-upon quota due to labor shortages and other difficulties, they sought additional compensation beyond what was stipulated in their contract on grounds that these unforeseen circumstances constituted "commercial impracticability." The court rejected this argument, ruling that such hardships were foreseeable risks inherent in logging operations and thus did not justify altering contractual terms post facto.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Olson et al. v. United States Spruce Production Corporation argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly interpret and apply relevant contract law principles. The dissenting justices believed that the contract between Olson Bros and U.S Spruce Production Corp should have been considered as a whole, rather than focusing on individual clauses or terms in isolation. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "force majeure" clause, arguing that it did not absolve U.S Spruce from its contractual obligations under all circumstances but only when performance became impossible due to unforeseen events beyond their control. Furthermore, they contended that even if this clause could be interpreted broadly enough to cover labor strikes (which were at issue in this case), such an interpretation would still require proof that these strikes actually made performance impossible - something which they felt had not been adequately demonstrated by U.S Spruce.