In the case of Shanferoke Coal & Supply Corp. v. Westchester Service Corp., the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a clause in a contract that required all disputes be settled by arbitration in New York violated federal anti-trust laws. The plaintiff, Shanferoke Coal & Supply Corporation, argued that this clause restricted trade because it forced them to travel from their base in Pennsylvania to arbitrate any disagreements with the defendant, Westchester Service Corporation based in New York. However, the court ruled against Shanferoke and upheld the validity of such clauses under federal law stating they do not violate anti-trust legislation as they don't restrict or suppress competition but merely regulate where and how disputes between parties are resolved.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Shanferoke Coal & Supply Corp. v. Westchester Service Corp., argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles governing contracts and their interpretation. The dissent contended that, under these principles, it is not for courts to rewrite or revise contracts but rather to interpret them as they are written by parties involved. In this particular case, both parties agreed upon arbitration in New York as part of their contract terms; therefore, any dispute should be resolved through arbitration in New York according to those terms - regardless if one party later found it inconvenient or disadvantageous. The dissent also expressed concern about the potential implications of allowing federal courts to intervene and alter contractual agreements between private entities at will.