In the case of Vance v. W.A. Vandercook Company, 1897, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract for the sale and delivery of goods between two parties in different states could be considered interstate commerce and thus subject to federal jurisdiction. The plaintiff, Vance, had entered into an agreement with W.A Vandercook Company where he would deliver cottonseed oil at a future date but failed to do so due to market fluctuations that made it unprofitable for him. In response, Vandercook sued for breach of contract under Illinois law which allowed recovery based on market price differences at time of breach rather than actual damages suffered by non-delivery. The court ruled against Vance's claim that this was interstate commerce because although parties were from different states and product would cross state lines upon delivery; their agreement itself did not constitute such since no physical movement or transportation occurred as part of making it - only potential future action if fulfilled successfully later on. Therefore, this case clarified that contracts alone without accompanying transport across state borders are not covered under Commerce Clause powers granted to Congress by Constitution; leaving them instead within purview of individual State laws governing contractual relationships.

In the dissenting opinion for Vance v. W.A. Vandercook Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Vandercook contradicted established legal principles regarding contract law and unjust enrichment. The dissenting justices believed that Vance had fulfilled his contractual obligations by delivering goods as agreed upon with Vandercook, but was not adequately compensated due to an alleged misunderstanding about payment terms. They contended that this constituted unjust enrichment on part of Vandercook at the expense of Vance, which should have been rectified by requiring full payment for delivered goods rather than upholding an unfair agreement based on a miscommunication or deceitful conduct. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of relevant statutes and case law pertaining to contracts and commercial transactions, arguing instead for a more equitable application of these laws in line with their original intent and purpose.