In the 1890 case of Fitzgerald and Mallory Construction Company v. Fitzgerald, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over land ownership in Washington D.C. The plaintiff, Fitzgerald and Mallory Construction Company, claimed that they had purchased a piece of property from James A. Tait under an agreement which stipulated that if Tait could not provide clear title to the land within six months, he would refund their money plus interest. However, when it was discovered that part of this property actually belonged to another individual named John Hitz (who had previously sold his rights to Edward M. Green), Tait refused to return the purchase price as agreed upon in their contract citing that he did have clear title for most of the land except for one small portion owned by Hitz/Green. The court ruled against Fitzgerald and Mallory Construction Company stating two main reasons: First, because they failed to notify Tait about this issue within six months as required by their contract; Second - even though there were some issues with title clarity due to previous transactions between Hitz and Green - these didn't affect majority of lands bought by them from Tait hence making him rightful owner who can sell those properties without any legal hindrance.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Fitzgerald and Mallory Construction Company v. Fitzgerald, 1890, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling was incorrect due to an improper interpretation of contract law. The dissent contended that the plaintiff had not fulfilled their contractual obligations and therefore should not be entitled to damages from the defendant. They further asserted that by failing to complete their work as stipulated in the agreement, they were actually in breach of contract themselves. This view challenged the majority's stance which held that despite incomplete performance on part of plaintiff, they were still eligible for compensation based on quantum meruit (the reasonable value of services). The dissent believed this approach undermined fundamental principles of contract law where full performance is typically required for payment unless otherwise specified within terms agreed upon by both parties involved.