In the case of Willing et al. v. Chicago Auditorium Association, 1927, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with deciding on a dispute over property rights and lease agreements between two parties: The Chicago Auditorium Association (CAA) and its lessee, Mr. Willing along with other plaintiffs who were bondholders in CAA's mortgage trust deed. The controversy arose when CAA attempted to terminate their long-term lease agreement with Mr.Willing due to financial difficulties they faced during World War I which led them into bankruptcy proceedings. The main issue at hand was whether or not the termination of this lease violated any contractual obligations or laws related to bankruptcy proceedings as claimed by Mr.Willing and his co-plaintiffs who argued that their interests as bondholders were being unfairly compromised. The court ruled in favor of CAA stating that under Illinois law, it had every right to terminate its leases if it found itself unable to meet its financial obligations despite any existing contracts or agreements made prior to filing for bankruptcy protection. This decision set an important precedent regarding how courts would interpret state laws concerning property rights and contract enforcement within federal bankruptcy cases moving forward.

In the dissenting opinion for Willing et al. v. Chicago Auditorium Association, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., joined by Justice Louis Brandeis, disagreed with the majority's decision to not enforce a contract on grounds of impracticability due to changed circumstances. The justices argued that it was not within their purview to decide whether or not a business venture would be profitable and thus determine if a contract should be enforced based on this speculation. They believed that such decisions were best left up to those involved in the business transaction themselves rather than being dictated by courts of law. Furthermore, they contended that there is inherent risk in any commercial enterprise and parties entering into contracts must accept these risks as part of doing business; therefore, changes in economic conditions should not excuse non-performance under an agreement unless explicitly stated so within its terms.