In the United States v. Whited & Wheless, Limited et al., 1917, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a case concerning contractual obligations during wartime. The defendants were British companies that had entered into contracts to sell cotton to a German company before World War I broke out in Europe. However, they failed to deliver the goods due to Britain's prohibition on trading with enemy countries once war was declared. The plaintiff sued for breach of contract and won in lower courts but appealed when damages awarded were less than expected. The Supreme Court ruled against the plaintiff stating that it could not enforce contracts made illegal by foreign laws or policies even if those laws came into effect after the agreement was signed - as long as they existed at time of performance/delivery (lex loci solutionis). It also held that international law did not require neutral nations like America (at this point) to ignore belligerent nation’s trade restrictions during war times; hence these restrictions should be considered part of 'public policy'. This ruling established important precedents regarding enforcement of international commercial agreements and impact of public policy considerations on them.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Whited & Wheless, Limited case argued that the majority's interpretation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was too broad and could potentially criminalize normal business practices. The dissenters believed that not all restraints on trade were intended to be prohibited by this act, only those which are unreasonable or create a monopoly. They contended that if every contract or agreement affecting interstate commerce is considered as restraining trade, then virtually any commercial activity could fall under its purview - an outcome they deemed absurd and unintended by Congress when it passed the law. Furthermore, they disagreed with applying this federal statute to actions taken abroad by American companies; such extraterritorial application was seen as exceeding U.S jurisdictional limits set forth in international law principles.