In the case of United States v. A. Schrader's Son, Inc., 1919, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with issues related to wartime contracts and their enforceability post-war. The defendant, A. Schrader's Son Inc., had entered into a contract with the government during World War I to manufacture gas masks at a fixed price per unit for delivery by certain dates in 1918 and 1919. However, after the war ended in November 1918 before all deliveries were completed, they sought to renegotiate prices due to decreased demand and increased costs of production but continued manufacturing under protest when negotiations failed. The government sued for breach of contract when Schrader refused further performance without higher compensation while Schrader counterclaimed that it was entitled to an equitable adjustment because completion became impossible due to circumstances beyond its control (the end of war). The Supreme Court ruled against Schrader stating that there was no provision within their contract allowing for adjustments based on changes in market conditions or other unforeseen events such as cessation of hostilities; hence they must fulfill their contractual obligations despite any financial loss incurred.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States v. A. Schrader's Son, Inc., argued that the majority had erred in their interpretation of the Sherman Act and its application to this particular case. The dissent contended that there was no evidence presented to suggest that A. Schrader's Son, Inc., had engaged in any form of monopolistic practices or anti-competitive behavior as defined by the act itself. They believed that simply being a large corporation with significant market share did not automatically equate to engaging in illegal activities under antitrust laws, unless it could be proven beyond reasonable doubt that such actions were deliberately undertaken with malicious intent to stifle competition and create an unfair marketplace advantage for themselves at others' expense.