In the case of Priebe & Sons, Inc. v. United States in 1947, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving contract interpretation between a private company and the federal government during World War II. The issue was whether or not Priebe & Sons were entitled to an adjustment for increased labor costs under their contract with the government for producing canned eggs. The court held that Priebe & Sons were not entitled to such an adjustment because they had failed to include specific language in their contract that would have allowed them to recover additional costs due to changes in wage rates mandated by law or governmental regulations after entering into the agreement with the government. Therefore, any increase in wages paid by Priebe & Sons beyond what was contemplated at time of contracting could not be passed onto United States as it did not fall within ambit of "changed conditions" clause present in standard form contracts used by War Food Administration.

In the dissenting opinion for PRIEBE & SONS, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 1947 case, it was argued that the majority's interpretation of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) was too broad and not in line with its original intent. The dissenting justices believed that PACA was designed to protect producers and growers from unfair business practices by brokers and dealers; however, they disagreed with extending this protection to include disputes between buyers themselves as seen in this case where a buyer sued another buyer under PACA provisions. They contended that such an extension could potentially lead to unintended consequences beyond what Congress had originally intended when drafting the law. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential abuse of these protections by unscrupulous parties seeking unjust enrichment at others' expense.