In the case of Parker v. McLain, 1914, the Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether a contract for sale of land in Texas by a resident of New York was enforceable under Texas law. The plaintiff, Parker, had entered into an agreement with McLain's deceased husband where he agreed to sell his land in Texas while residing in New York. After his death, Mrs. McLain refused to honor the agreement and Parker sued her as executrix of her late husband's estate. The lower court ruled that since Mr. McLain was not physically present in Texas at the time he made the contract with Parker and did not have any agent there acting on his behalf when making this deal; therefore it could not be enforced under existing laws which required either physical presence or representation during such transactions. However, upon appeal by Parker to the Supreme Court it reversed this decision stating that even though Mr.McLain wasn't physically present or represented during transaction but still if he intended for this deal to be governed by Texan law then it should be considered valid regardless of where he resided at time.

The dissenting opinion in the Parker v. McLain case argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly consider and apply established legal principles regarding contracts. The dissent emphasized that a contract is not void simply because one party has more knowledge or experience than the other, as long as there is no fraud or undue influence involved. They believed that Mr. McLain had every right to sell his property at a price he deemed appropriate without being accused of taking advantage of Mrs. Parker's lack of business acumen or real estate knowledge, especially since she willingly entered into the agreement with full awareness of its terms and conditions.