The Sanford & Brooks Co. v. United States case in 1924 revolved around a dispute over the interpretation of a contract between the plaintiff, Sanford & Brooks Company, and the U.S government for dredging operations in Baltimore Harbor. The company claimed that they were entitled to additional compensation due to encountering unforeseen obstructions during their work which caused delays and increased costs. However, the Supreme Court ruled against them stating that under their contract terms, they had agreed to perform all necessary dredging regardless of conditions encountered at fixed unit prices per cubic yard removed; hence no extra payment was warranted for unexpected difficulties or obstructions faced during execution of work.

In the dissenting opinion for Sanford & Brooks Co. v. United States, it was argued that the government did not have a right to terminate its contract with Sanford & Brooks Company without cause and then sue for damages due to non-performance of said contract. The justice believed that such an action by the government violated principles of fairness and equity, as well as established legal precedents regarding contractual obligations. Furthermore, he contended that if any party could arbitrarily end a legally binding agreement without reason or justification and still seek compensation from the other party, it would undermine confidence in contracts altogether. He also pointed out inconsistencies in how lower courts had interpreted similar cases which further complicated matters.