In the case of Realty Acceptance Corp. v. Montgomery, 1931, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over a contract involving land sales in Pennsylvania. The plaintiff, Realty Acceptance Corporation had sold lots to various buyers including defendant Montgomery on installment contracts which contained forfeiture clauses for non-payment. When many purchasers defaulted due to economic hardship during the Great Depression era, Realty repossessed and resold these properties without refunding any part of installments already paid by defaulters as per their contractual rights. Montgomery sued claiming that such forfeiture was unconscionable and against public policy since it allowed Realty to profit unfairly from multiple sales of same property while retaining all previous payments made towards it by defaulters like him. The court ruled in favor of Montgomery holding that although such contracts were not illegal or void per se under state law but they could be set aside if found unconscionable upon judicial review based on circumstances surrounding each transaction individually. This decision established an important precedent allowing courts discretion in enforcing harsh contractual terms especially those affecting economically vulnerable parties adversely during times of financial distress thereby promoting fairness and justice within commercial transactions.

In the dissenting opinion for Realty Acceptance Corp. v. Montgomery, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Montgomery contradicted established legal principles regarding contracts and property rights. The dissenting justices believed that Realty Acceptance Corporation had a valid contract with Montgomery which should have been honored, despite any potential misgivings about its fairness or legality under state law. They contended that by allowing Montgomery to avoid his contractual obligations due to an alleged violation of local usury laws, the Court was effectively condoning and encouraging irresponsible behavior on his part while punishing Realty Acceptance Corporation for merely attempting to enforce its lawful rights as a creditor. This interpretation of contract law could potentially undermine confidence in business transactions and destabilize economic relationships if left unchecked.