In the 1971 case S&E Contractors, Inc. v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the U.S government over a dispute with S&E Contractors regarding contract interpretation and payment for construction work on an Air Force base runway in Greenland. The contractor claimed additional compensation due to encountering permafrost during excavation which was not explicitly mentioned in their contract but argued it fell under "changed conditions" clause that would warrant extra pay. The court disagreed stating that while permafrost was not specifically addressed, other related issues such as potential ice content were included indicating awareness of possible difficult conditions without guaranteeing their absence or presence at any specific level. Therefore, encountering permafrost did not constitute a changed condition justifying additional compensation beyond agreed terms.

In the dissenting opinion for S&E Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 1971, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold a contractor liable for damages due to delays caused by unforeseen soil conditions contradicted established legal principles and previous court rulings. The dissent emphasized that under traditional contract law principles, when both parties are mistaken about a fundamental assumption on which the contract is based - in this case, the condition of the soil - and this mistake has a material effect on performance of the contract, then it should be voidable by either party. Furthermore, they pointed out that prior decisions had held government contractors harmless from such mistakes unless there was explicit language in their contracts holding them responsible for all risks associated with site conditions. In conclusion of their argument against imposing liability on S&E Contractors Inc., they expressed concern over how such an interpretation could deter future potential contractors from bidding on government projects due to increased risk.