In the case of United States v. Congress Construction Co., 1911, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over a contract for construction work on post offices in various cities. The government had entered into an agreement with Congress Construction Company to build these facilities but later sought to terminate this contract due to alleged non-performance by the company. The company contested this termination and claimed that they were not at fault, arguing that delays were caused by changes requested by the government itself or other unforeseen circumstances beyond their control. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Congress Construction Company, stating that while there was indeed delay in completion of some projects, it was largely due to alterations and additions made necessary by the government's own actions or requirements which could not have been anticipated when entering into original contracts. Therefore, such delays did not constitute grounds for terminating agreements without compensation as per terms originally agreed upon between both parties. This ruling established important precedents regarding interpretation of contractual obligations and responsibilities especially where one party is a governmental entity - emphasizing fairness and equitable treatment even under conditions where strict adherence to timelines may be affected due to unanticipated factors.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States v. Congress Construction Co., 1911, argued that the government should not be able to sue a company for damages when it has already accepted and paid for work completed by that company. The justice believed this was an unfair practice as it allowed the government to essentially 'double-dip' - accepting and paying for services rendered, then later suing for damages over those same services. This could potentially lead to abuse of power by the government against private companies who have fulfilled their contractual obligations but are still held liable due to governmental dissatisfaction after payment has been made. Therefore, according to this viewpoint, once a contract is fulfilled and payment received without any immediate objection or claim from either party involved at that time, no further legal action should be permissible regarding said contract.