In the case of Richardson Machinery Company v. Scott in 1927, the United States Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a contract for the sale of machinery could be enforced when it had been signed by only one party. The plaintiff, Richardson Machinery Company, argued that they had entered into an agreement with defendant Scott to sell him certain machinery and equipment. However, Scott refused to accept delivery or pay for these items on grounds that he never signed any such agreement. In its decision, the court ruled in favor of Richardson Machinery Company stating that even though there was no signature from Mr.Scott on their written contract as required under Louisiana law (where this dispute originated), other evidence indicated his acceptance and intent to abide by its terms - including correspondence between parties where he acknowledged receipt and agreed upon price along with partial payment made towards purchase price which constituted sufficient proof of a binding contract despite lack of formal execution.

In the dissenting opinion for Richardson Machinery Company v. Scott, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Louisiana law requiring out-of-state corporations to appoint an in-state agent for service of process violated both due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissent contended that this requirement placed an undue burden on interstate commerce by forcing non-resident companies to maintain a physical presence within Louisiana even if their business operations did not necessitate such arrangements. Furthermore, they believed that this law unfairly discriminated against foreign corporations as local businesses were not subjected to similar obligations. They also raised concerns about potential abuses stemming from these requirements, including possible collusion between state-appointed agents and local courts or authorities at the expense of non-resident companies' rights and interests.