The U.S. Supreme Court case Werk et al., v. Parker et al., in 1918 involved a dispute between two business partnerships, Robert F. Werk & Company and F.T. Parker Company, over the interpretation of a contract related to the sale of cottonseed oil cake meal (a byproduct used as animal feed). The main issue was whether or not "cottonseed oil cake" included both winter and summer varieties or only one type. The court ruled that the term "cottonseed oil cake," as used in their contract, did include both types unless specifically stated otherwise within the agreement itself - which it did not in this instance. This decision hinged on principles of contractual interpretation; namely that contracts should be interpreted according to their plain meaning unless there is ambiguity requiring further examination into parties' intentions at time of formation. In addition, where trade terms are employed without clear definition within an agreement they should be understood according to common usage within relevant industry. Therefore, since no specific variety was mentioned in their contract and given that 'cottonseed oil cake' generally refers to all types within trading circles dealing with such commodities - it was held that Robert F.Werk & Co were liable for delivering all kinds including those disputed.

The dissenting opinion in the Werk v. Parker case argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established legal principles regarding contracts and their enforcement. The dissent took issue with the court's interpretation of "good faith" in contract law, arguing that it should not be used to invalidate an otherwise valid agreement between two parties. They contended that good faith is subjective and its application can lead to uncertainty and unpredictability in contractual relationships. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s view on what constitutes a breach of contract, asserting that any deviation from agreed terms should be considered as such regardless of whether or not it causes harm to one party. In essence, they believed that upholding contractual obligations strictly according to their terms promotes certainty and fairness in business transactions.