In the 1942 case Warren-Bradshaw Drilling Co. v. Hall, Agent, et al., the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over oil drilling rights in California. The plaintiff, Warren-Bradshaw Drilling Company had leased land from private owners for oil extraction and was subsequently taxed by California state on this leasehold interest. However, it emerged that these lands were actually part of an Indian reservation and thus under federal jurisdiction - not subject to state taxation according to existing laws at that time which exempted "allotted" Indian lands from such taxes. The company argued they should be refunded the taxes paid as they were unlawfully collected by the State of California. The Supreme Court ruled against Warren-Bradshaw Drilling Company stating that while it is true allotted Indian lands are generally exempt from state taxation; this exemption does not extend to non-native entities operating on those lands through leases or other agreements with native tribes or individuals.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Warren-Bradshaw Drilling Co. v. Hall, Agent, et al., argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of contract law and an unwarranted intrusion into private contractual relations by the courts. The dissent emphasized that under traditional contract law principles, parties are free to negotiate their own terms and conditions as long as they do not violate public policy or statutory provisions. In this case, there was no evidence to suggest any such violation had occurred; therefore, it should have been left for the contracting parties themselves to determine whether or not performance would be excused due to unforeseen circumstances (force majeure). By imposing its own interpretation on what constitutes force majeure without clear guidance from either party’s agreement or existing legal precedent, the court overstepped its bounds and undermined fundamental tenets of freedom of contract.