In the case of Gandia v. Pettingill, a dispute arose over property in Puerto Rico that was sold by Mr. Gandia to Mr. Pettingill under an agreement stating that if the land was ever used for sugar cultivation, then additional payments would be due to Gandia or his heirs. After several years and changes in ownership, a company began cultivating sugar on the land but refused to make additional payments as stipulated in the original contract between Gandia and Pettingill. The Supreme Court ruled against Gandia's heirs who were seeking these extra payments from subsequent owners of this property because they had not been party to nor aware of this initial agreement when purchasing it later on from others than Pettingill himself; therefore they could not be held responsible for honoring such terms which were unknown at time their purchase took place. This decision established important precedents regarding contracts and real estate transactions: namely that obligations imposed upon buyers must be clearly stated within deeds themselves rather than relying solely upon verbal agreements made outside formal documentation process so all parties involved have full understanding about what is expected from them before finalizing any deal involving properties' transfer or sale.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Gandia v. Pettingill argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found for Pettingill on grounds of his being an innocent purchaser without notice, was incorrect. The dissent contended that there were significant questions about whether or not Pettingill had sufficient knowledge at the time of purchase to put him on inquiry as to potential issues with title ownership. It was suggested that he should have been aware of possible irregularities and thus could not claim innocence in this matter. Furthermore, it was pointed out that even if he did lack initial awareness, upon discovery of any inconsistencies later on, he had a duty to investigate further rather than simply proceeding with the transaction as though nothing were amiss. In failing both these respects according to this viewpoint, Pettingill should be held accountable for his actions and therefore lose his claim over the disputed property.