In the 1916 case of The Kronprinzessin Cecilie, the US Supreme Court was tasked with determining who should bear the loss for a shipment of gold that never reached its intended destination due to World War I. The ship carrying the gold had been forced to return to America from Germany because of war risks. The court ruled in favor of G.H. Walker & Co., stating that they were not liable for paying for goods they did not receive and which remained in possession and control of their sellers, Rothschild Brothers, throughout. This decision established an important precedent regarding risk allocation in international trade contracts during times when delivery becomes impossible due to unforeseen circumstances such as war.

In the dissenting opinion for The Kronprinzessin Cecilie case, it was argued that the majority's decision to deny recovery to the ship owners was incorrect. The dissent emphasized that when a risk is foreseeable and reasonable precautions are taken against it, there should be no liability if loss occurs due to an unforeseen event or force majeure. In this case, they believed that the outbreak of World War I and subsequent seizure by American authorities were such events. They also pointed out inconsistencies in how similar cases had been handled previously by U.S courts which further complicated matters. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "perils of the sea," arguing instead for a broader definition encompassing all dangers related to maritime navigation rather than just natural disasters as interpreted by their counterparts.