In the case of Tipton v. Socony Mobil Oil Co., Inc., 1963, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over an oil and gas lease. The plaintiff, Tipton, claimed that Socony Mobil Oil Co had breached their contract by failing to drill additional wells on leased land in New Mexico as they were obligated to do under a "prudent operator" clause within the lease agreement. This clause required them to operate and develop the property as would any prudent operator under similar circumstances. However, Socony argued that it was not economically feasible for them to drill more wells due to low market prices for natural gas at that time. The court ruled in favor of Socony stating that economic feasibility is indeed a factor when considering what actions a 'prudent operator' might take under similar conditions. Therefore, if drilling additional wells was not economically viable given current market conditions then this did not constitute breach of contract on part of Socony.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Tipton v. Socony Mobil Oil Co., Inc. argued that the majority's decision to dismiss the complaint was premature and unjustified, as it did not allow for a full exploration of potential evidence supporting Tipton's claim. The dissent emphasized that at this early stage in proceedings, all allegations made by Tipton should be accepted as true and interpreted favorably towards him. It also pointed out that there were no clear legal precedents or rules mandating dismissal if an alleged conspiracy could have been achieved through lawful means - which was one reason given by the majority for their decision. Therefore, according to this view, dismissing on such grounds constituted an unwarranted extension of existing law without proper justification or discussion.