The U.S. Supreme Court case Security Services, Inc. v. Kmart Corporation in 1993 revolved around a dispute over the interpretation of a contract between the two parties involved. Security Services, Inc., which provided security services to Kmart stores, claimed that it was owed additional compensation under their agreement due to an increase in its costs resulting from wage and benefit increases for its employees who were members of a labor union. The court had to determine whether these cost increases fell within the scope of "changes in laws or regulations" clause stipulated by their contract as grounds for additional payment. Kmart argued that changes in collective bargaining agreements did not constitute "changes in laws or regulations". The court agreed with this view and ruled against Security Services' claim for extra compensation based on increased labor costs arising from new collective bargaining agreements with its workers' union.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Security Services, Inc. v. Kmart Corporation disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Michigan law regarding contract termination. The dissent argued that under Michigan law, a party to a contract can terminate it at any time for any reason unless there is an agreement stating otherwise. In this case, they believed that Kmart had such right as no explicit provision prevented them from terminating their security services contract with Security Services Inc., even though it was done before its expiration date without cause or notice. They contended that while good faith and fair dealing are implied in every contract under Michigan law, these principles do not limit a party's ability to exercise its contractual rights - including termination - unless specifically stated within the terms of the agreement itself.