The case of William Cramp and Sons Ship and Engine Building Company v. United States in 1915 revolved around a dispute over the interpretation of a contract between the shipbuilding company and the U.S government. The company had agreed to construct two naval vessels for the government, but during construction, it was discovered that certain materials specified in the contract were not available. As such, alternative materials were used instead without any formal modification to the original agreement. Upon completion of work, however, disputes arose regarding payment as both parties interpreted their contractual obligations differently due to this change in material usage. The Supreme Court ruled against William Cramp & Sons on grounds that they failed to formally modify their contract when changes occurred during production which affected costs incurred by them; thus making them ineligible for additional compensation from Government beyond what was initially agreed upon within terms of original agreement despite increased expenses faced due to unavailability of specific resources outlined therein.

In the dissenting opinion for William Cramp and Sons Ship and Engine Building Company v. United States, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., joined by Justice Charles Evans Hughes, disagreed with the majority's interpretation of a contract between the shipbuilding company and the U.S. government. The majority held that an agreement to build ships "in accordance" with certain plans implied a warranty that those plans were adequate for their purpose; if they were not, then it was up to the contractor to make them so at its own expense. However, in his dissenting opinion, Justice Holmes argued that such an interpretation was unreasonable given normal business practices - no reasonable person would assume such risk without explicit terms stating so in their contract. He also noted there was nothing inherently wrong or fraudulent about selling something as is without guaranteeing its fitness for any particular use unless explicitly stated otherwise.