In the case of Ricaud et al. v. American Metal Company, Limited (1917), the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract for the sale and delivery of copper between two parties was enforceable despite changes in market conditions due to World War I. The plaintiffs, Ricaud and others, had agreed to purchase copper from American Metal Company at a fixed price but sought to void this agreement when global events caused significant increases in its value. They argued that these unforeseen circumstances made it impossible for them to fulfill their contractual obligations without suffering substantial losses. The court ruled against Ricaud et al., upholding that contracts must be honored regardless of subsequent changes in economic or market conditions unless specific provisions were included within the contract allowing for such adjustments. This decision reinforced principles of pacta sunt servanda ("agreements must be kept") underpinning commercial law and affirmed that parties entering into contracts are responsible for managing risks associated with potential future uncertainties.

The dissenting opinion in Ricaud et al. v. American Metal Company, Limited argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against the plaintiffs was incorrect because it failed to consider important aspects of Mexican law relevant to the case. The dissent contended that under Mexican law, which should have been applied due to Mexico being where the contract at issue was made and intended to be executed, an agent who acts within his authority binds his principal even if he fails in performing his duties faithfully or competently. Therefore, according to this view, American Metal Company should still be held liable for its agent's actions despite any alleged misconduct on part of said agent as long as those actions were within scope of agency relationship established by company itself.