In the 1927 case of The Steel Trader, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over maritime law and salvage rights. A British steamship named "The Steel Trader" had run aground off the coast of Virginia and was subsequently salvaged by an American company, Merritt & Chapman Derrick & Wrecking Co., who then sought compensation for their services. However, because there were no formal contracts or agreements in place between these two parties prior to the salvage operation, it fell upon the courts to determine what constituted fair payment under international maritime law. The court ultimately ruled that while salvors are indeed entitled to compensation for their efforts in saving property at sea, this remuneration must be proportionate to both the value of said property and degree of danger involved in its recovery - not simply based on how much work was put into it. In this particular instance though, they found that Merritt & Chapman's claim (which amounted roughly half value of The Steel Trader) was excessive; thus reducing it significantly but still acknowledging their right to some form recompense.

The dissenting opinion in the case of The Steel Trader, 1927 argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with established principles of maritime law. It contended that a ship owner should not be held liable for damages caused by an independent contractor's negligence unless it can be proven that the owner had knowledge of and consented to negligent acts. In this case, there was no evidence presented to suggest such knowledge or consent on part of the ship owner. Therefore, according to this view, holding them responsible for damages is unjustified and sets a dangerous precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances. This could potentially expose ship owners to excessive liability risks which they have little control over and may discourage investment in shipping industry due its increased unpredictability.