In the case of Anderson v. United Realty Company, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in New York City. The plaintiff, Anderson, claimed that he had purchased property from the defendant, United Realty Company. However, after making several payments on his contract for deed and building improvements on the property worth $10k-$15k (a significant sum at that time), he discovered that United Realty did not actually own all of the land they sold to him; part was owned by another party who threatened to evict him. Anderson sued for fraud and breach of contract but lost in lower courts because those courts held that he should have done more due diligence before buying. He appealed to the U.S Supreme Court arguing it was unfair for him to bear this risk when realty companies are supposed to be experts in such matters. The Supreme Court agreed with Anderson and reversed previous rulings against him stating: "A purchaser has a right to rely upon any statement made by vendor as an inducement...and if such statements prove false...the purchaser may rescind." This ruling established important precedent regarding buyer's rights and seller's responsibilities in real estate transactions.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Anderson v. United Realty Company argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found in favor of United Realty Company, was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that Anderson had a valid claim against the company for breach of contract and should have been allowed to pursue damages. They contended that there were significant factual disputes about whether or not United Realty had fulfilled its contractual obligations towards Anderson, and these issues should have been resolved by a jury rather than dismissed outright by the court. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of relevant laws and precedents related to contracts and property rights.