In the case of Wilson Cypress Company v. Del Pozo Y Marco, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wilson Cypress Company, a Florida-based corporation involved in timber and lumber operations. The dispute arose when Del Pozo Y Marco, a Spanish company, claimed that they had not received certain goods which were shipped by Wilson Cypress Company as per their agreement. However, it was found that the shipment had been sent to Havana but due to miscommunication or misunderstanding between parties regarding shipping terms (CIF vs FOB), it was never collected by Del Pozo Y Marco from the port authorities there and eventually auctioned off as unclaimed cargo after several months. The court held that under an f.o.b contract (free on board), responsibility for ensuring safe delivery is transferred from seller to buyer once goods are loaded onto ship at origin port; thus any loss occurring during transit falls upon buyer's shoulders unless otherwise specified in contract terms. Therefore since no such specification existed here and considering other evidences presented before them including correspondence between both parties post-shipment indicating acknowledgment of receipt by defendant party albeit indirectly - they concluded that plaintiff company did fulfill its contractual obligations satisfactorily thereby dismissing defendant's claim for damages.

In the dissenting opinion for Wilson Cypress Company v. Del Pozo Y Marco, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to consider important aspects of international law and comity among nations. The dissent took issue with the court's interpretation of a Spanish treaty and its application to Florida land grants, arguing that this approach undermined Spain’s sovereignty over its former territories. It also criticized the majority for not giving due regard to previous decisions by Spanish courts on similar issues prior to Florida becoming part of U.S territory. Furthermore, it contended that even if there were doubts about how Spanish laws should be interpreted or applied in these cases, those doubts should have been resolved in favor of upholding long-standing property rights rather than disrupting them based on speculative interpretations.