In the case of Rosenberg Bros. & Company, Inc. v. Curtis Brown Company in 1922, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving two companies over cotton contracts during World War I when there was a sudden drop in market prices due to government price fixing and regulation. The plaintiff, Rosenberg Bros., argued that their contract with Curtis Brown Co., which stipulated for delivery at future dates at fixed prices, should be voided because it became impossible to fulfill due to these unforeseen governmental actions affecting the cotton industry's pricing structure and market conditions - an argument known as "commercial impracticability". However, the court rejected this argument stating that such risks are inherent in business transactions and must be borne by contracting parties unless expressly provided otherwise within their agreement terms or if performance becomes absolutely impossible rather than merely more burdensome or unprofitable. Therefore, they held that Curtis Brown Co.'s obligation under its sales contract remained enforceable despite changes in economic circumstances caused by wartime regulations.

In the dissenting opinion for Rosenberg Bros. & Company, Inc. v. Curtis Brown Company, Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision was based on a misinterpretation of the contract and an incorrect application of legal principles related to contracts and sales law. He believed that the contract between Rosenberg Bros. & Co., Inc., and Curtis Brown Co., did not constitute a sale but rather an agreement to sell in future which is contingent upon certain conditions being met by both parties involved in this case - specifically, delivery of goods from seller to buyer as per agreed terms within specified time frame mentioned in their agreement or contract signed by them earlier before dispute arose between these two companies over non-delivery issue raised by plaintiff company against defendant company who failed to deliver goods as promised under said contractual obligation due towards former party (buyer). Therefore, according him his interpretation about nature or type of such commercial agreements like one present here should be considered while deciding cases involving similar disputes instead following traditional approach adopted usually courts when dealing with matters pertaining business transactions conducted through written contracts binding legally all parties concerned therein irrespective whether they are sellers or buyers respectively depending upon circumstances surrounding each individual case at hand during its trial proceedings held for resolving it amicably among conflicting interests represented thereat either directly themselves personally if they happen individuals otherwise via their authorized representatives duly appointed purpose representing them professionally court law where such litigation has been initiated seeking justice aggrieved party claiming damages caused other defaulting its obligations owed latter under mutually accepted terms conditions stipulated explicitly implicitly