In the 1947 case of United States v. John J. Felin & Co., Inc., the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over whether or not a contract was legally binding due to its potential violation of federal price regulations during World War II. The government had contracted John J. Felin & Co, Inc for canned tomatoes at an agreed-upon price that later turned out to be higher than what was allowed by wartime pricing restrictions set by the Office of Price Administration (OPA). When it came time for payment, however, the government refused to pay more than what would have been permitted under OPA rules and argued that any agreement in excess of these limits was unenforceable because it violated public policy. The Supreme Court ruled against this argument made by the government stating that while contracts violating law or public policy are generally voided; exceptions can be made when one party is unaware they're breaking any laws and if enforcing such contracts doesn't result in harm towards objectives behind those laws being broken. In this case, since both parties were unaware about exceeding OPA's maximum allowable prices at time of contracting and as enforcement wouldn't undermine goals behind setting those price ceilings - namely preventing inflationary pressures on economy during war times - court held contract enforceable.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. John J. Felin & Co., Inc., it was argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 22(a) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which allowed for imposition of penalties on those who violated marketing quotas, was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that this section did not apply to processors like Felin & Co., but rather only to producers and growers directly involved in overproduction. They contended that applying these penalties to processors would result in an unfair burden being placed on them, as they had no control over production levels or could not reasonably be expected to monitor compliance with such quotas among their suppliers. Furthermore, they felt this interpretation went against Congress' intent when drafting the legislation - a point supported by legislative history and previous court rulings related to similar cases.