In the case of Wright v. Ynchausti and Company, 1926, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between an American citizen and a foreign corporation could be enforced in U.S courts if it involved property located outside of the country. The plaintiff, Mr. Wright, had entered into a contract with Ynchausti & Co., a Philippine company to purchase land in Manila but later refused to complete payment on grounds that he believed the company did not have clear title to sell said property. In response, Ynchausti & Co sued for breach of contract in New York where both parties also conducted business. The court ruled against Mr.Wright stating that while generally contracts involving real estate are governed by local law (lex rei sitae), this principle does not apply when dealing with contractual obligations such as payment terms which can be adjudicated under any competent jurisdiction agreed upon by contracting parties - including US courts even though they do not typically enforce foreign laws or pass judgement on titles to foreign lands.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Wright v. Ynchausti and Company argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which held that an American citizen could not sue a foreign corporation for damages incurred during World War I, was incorrect. The dissent contended that this interpretation of international law was too narrow and failed to consider broader principles of justice and equity. They believed that the plaintiff should have been allowed to pursue his claim against the defendant company because it had conducted business in America at some point before or after committing its alleged wrongs overseas. This view suggested a more expansive understanding of jurisdictional reach than what was upheld by the majority, arguing for greater accountability on part of corporations operating internationally.