In the case of Bock v. Perkins, 1890, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a contract for land in Michigan could be voided due to an alleged misrepresentation about the quality of timber on that land. The plaintiff, Bock, had purchased a tract of land from Perkins based on assurances that it contained valuable timber resources. However, after purchasing and surveying the property himself he found these claims were false and sued for damages alleging fraud. The court ruled in favor of Perkins stating there was no evidence proving fraudulent intent or deceitful conduct by him during negotiations with Bock. It held that any statements made regarding the quantity or value of timber were merely expressions of opinion rather than factual representations which would constitute fraud if proven untrue. Furthermore, it emphasized that as per common law principles governing contracts involving real estate transactions; buyers are expected to exercise their own judgment and diligence when assessing potential purchases instead relying solely upon seller's assertions about its worthiness.

In the dissenting opinion for Bock v. Perkins, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Perkins was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant errors made during the trial process which should have resulted in a reversal of judgment. They contended that certain evidence presented by Bock had been improperly excluded and this could have potentially influenced the jury's verdict if allowed into consideration. Furthermore, they disagreed with how instructions were given to the jury regarding their assessment of damages, arguing these instructions were misleading and prejudicial against Bock’s case. Therefore, they held firm on their stance that justice wasn't served properly due to procedural missteps at trial level.