In the case of Texas & Pacific Railway Company v. Marcus, 1914, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Texas & Pacific Railway Company. The dispute arose when a shipment was damaged during transit and Marcus filed a claim for damages against the railway company. However, according to an agreement between Marcus and the railway company, any claims for damage had to be made within seven months after delivery or they would not be considered valid. Despite this clause being printed on every bill issued by the railway company, Marcus argued that he was unaware of it as he did not read English well enough to understand it fully. The court held that ignorance is no excuse under law; therefore even if Mr.Marcus could not read English properly or failed to notice this condition does not absolve him from his contractual obligations agreed upon while accepting services from Texas & Pacific Railway Co., thus ruling in favor of them.

In the dissenting opinion for Texas & Pacific Railway Company v. Marcus, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to award damages to Marcus based on his potential earnings in Mexico. He argued that it was inappropriate and speculative to calculate damages based on wages in a foreign country where labor laws and economic conditions were different from those of the United States. Furthermore, he contended that such an approach could lead to unjust enrichment or unfair penalties depending upon fluctuations in international exchange rates or changes in foreign economies. In essence, Justice Holmes believed that compensation should be determined by domestic standards rather than potentially volatile foreign circumstances.