In the 1902 case Patterson v. Bark Eudora, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving maritime law and contract obligations. The plaintiff, Patterson, had chartered a ship from its owner for a specific voyage but failed to load cargo onto it within an agreed-upon timeframe. As such, the defendant (the ship's owner) considered this breach of contract and left without loading any of Patterson’s cargo onboard. When sued by Patterson for damages resulting from non-performance of the charter party agreement (i.e., not carrying his goods), Bark Eudora argued that they were justified in leaving as per their contractual rights due to delay caused by Patterson. The court sided with Bark Eudora stating that when there is unreasonable delay in loading cargo which causes demurrage (a charge payable to the owner of a chartered ship on failure to load or discharge the ship within an agreed time), then it can be treated as repudiatory breach allowing innocent parties like Bark Eudora here, to terminate contracts.

In the dissenting opinion for Patterson v. Bark Eudora, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles of maritime law. He contended that a ship owner should not be held liable for damages caused by an independent contractor unless it could be proven that they had been negligent in their selection or supervision of said contractor. In this case, he believed there was no evidence to suggest such negligence on part of the ship owner. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "seaworthiness," arguing it should only apply to physical conditions and equipment onboard rather than encompassing actions taken by crew members or contractors during loading procedures. Thus, according to Justice Harlan’s perspective, liability should have rested solely with the independent stevedore company responsible for improperly stowing cargo which led to damage.