In the 1897 case of Pratt v. Paris Gas Light & Coke Company, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Paris Gas Light & Coke Co., affirming that it had not violated any contract with Pratt. The dispute arose when Pratt claimed that he was entitled to perpetual free gas service from the company as part of a deal made during his tenure as president and superintendent. However, upon examination, no written agreement supporting this claim could be found; instead, only an oral agreement was presented which did not specify "perpetual" service but rather stated until such time as Mr. Pratt should cease to act in those capacities for said company". Therefore, once he ceased acting in these roles for the company (which occurred), his entitlement also ended according to their understanding of this verbal contract's terms. This decision reinforced the importance and necessity of clear contractual agreements within business transactions.

In the dissenting opinion for Pratt v. Paris Gas Light & Coke Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Paris Gas Light & Co., which allowed them to continue operating their gas plant despite causing significant harm and inconvenience to nearby residents, was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that this case should have been decided based on principles of nuisance law rather than contract law. They contended that even if an activity is lawful and beneficial to society as a whole, it can still be considered a nuisance if it causes substantial interference with another person's use or enjoyment of their property. Therefore, they felt that Pratt had every right to seek relief from the harmful effects caused by the company’s operations regardless of any existing contracts or agreements between other parties involved in this case.