In the 1893 Supreme Court case Root v. Woolworth, the court examined a dispute over patent rights. The plaintiff, Root, alleged that Woolworth had infringed on his patented invention for an improvement in sewing machines by manufacturing and selling similar devices without permission. However, Woolworth argued that he was not infringing because his machine used a different mechanism than what was specified in Root's patent claim. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Woolworth after closely examining the language of Root's patent claim and comparing it to the design of both machines. They found that while there were similarities between them, they did not operate using exactly the same mechanisms as described in Root’s original patent application. Therefore, even though both inventions achieved similar results (improvements to sewing machines), they did so through sufficiently distinct means which meant no infringement took place according to law at that time.

In the dissenting opinion for Root v. Woolworth, 1893, it was argued that the majority had misinterpreted key aspects of contract law and failed to adequately consider the rights and interests of all parties involved in this case. The dissenting justices believed that Mr. Root should have been allowed to recover his investment from Mr. Woolworth because he had acted in good faith when entering into their business arrangement and there was no evidence suggesting otherwise. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "consideration," arguing that it should not be limited only to monetary or tangible benefits but could also include other types of advantages or detriments incurred by either party as a result of their agreement. Furthermore, they contended that even if some elements were missing from their initial contract, these deficiencies could have been remedied through subsequent agreements between them rather than nullifying everything outright.