In Weigle v. Curtice Brothers Company, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract for the sale of goods violated anti-trust laws due to its restrictive nature. The plaintiff, Weigle, had entered into an agreement with Curtice Brothers Company where he agreed to sell their products exclusively in his store and not carry any competing brands. However, when he attempted to break this exclusivity clause by selling other brands' products as well, Curtice Brothers sued him for breach of contract. In response, Weigle claimed that such exclusive dealing contracts were illegal under federal antitrust law. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Curtice Brothers Company stating that while some exclusive dealing arrangements could potentially violate antitrust laws if they unreasonably restrained trade or created monopolies; this particular case did not meet those criteria because it didn't significantly impact competition or consumer choice on a broader scale beyond one single retailer's product offerings.

In the dissenting opinion for Weigle v. Curtice Brothers Company, it was argued that the plaintiff should not be barred from seeking compensation due to his own contributory negligence. The justice believed that while Weigle may have been negligent in failing to use a safety device provided by his employer, this did not absolve Curtice Brothers Company of its responsibility for maintaining a safe work environment. It was suggested that if an employee's failure to use safety equipment is considered as contributing negligence, then employers could potentially evade liability simply by providing such devices without ensuring their proper usage or effectiveness. This interpretation would undermine the purpose of labor laws designed to protect workers and place an undue burden on employees who are often less knowledgeable about potential hazards and how best to mitigate them.