In Ripley v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a contract between the U.S. government and a private contractor could be modified without additional consideration or mutual agreement. The case arose from an 1898 contract for construction of warships where the Navy Department unilaterally changed specifications after work had begun, causing increased costs for the contractor who then sought compensation. The court ruled in favor of Ripley (the plaintiff), stating that while governments have broad powers to modify contracts, such changes must be within reasonable bounds and cannot impose new burdens on one party without their consent or just compensation. This decision established important principles regarding contractual relations with federal agencies.

In the dissenting opinion for Ripley v. United States, it was argued that the majority's decision to deny Mr. Ripley his claim against the government for additional compensation was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there had been a clear breach of contract by the government when they failed to provide Mr. Ripley with all of the information necessary to accurately bid on a project, which resulted in him underestimating costs and suffering financial loss as a result. They contended that if an individual enters into a contract without full knowledge of its conditions due to concealment or misrepresentation by another party, then such ignorance should not be held against them but rather seen as grounds for recompense or adjustment in terms agreed upon initially.