In the case of Gast Realty and Investment Company v. Schneider Granite Company in 1915, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract for land purchase could be enforced despite an error in property description. The plaintiff, Gast Realty and Investment Company, had sold a piece of land to the defendant, Schneider Granite Company; however, there was an error in describing its boundaries. When this mistake came to light after closing on the sale agreement but before full payment had been made by Schneider Granite Co., they refused to complete their payments arguing that they were not obligated due to this discrepancy. The court ruled against them stating that even though there was indeed an error in defining boundaries within the contract's terms - it did not invalidate or nullify said contract as long as both parties agreed upon what parcel of land was being referred to during negotiations and signing. Therefore, since both parties knew which specific tract of land was involved at time of sale (despite incorrect boundary descriptions), Schneider Granite Co.'s refusal constituted breach rather than justified termination based on contractual errors.

In the dissenting opinion for Gast Realty and Investment Company v. Schneider Granite Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Schneider Granite Company was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that Gast Realty had not been given an adequate opportunity to present its case before judgment was rendered against them. They also disagreed with the interpretation of certain legal principles by both the trial court and their fellow Supreme Court justices, arguing these interpretations were inconsistent with established precedent. Furthermore, they contended that there were factual errors made during proceedings which influenced the outcome unfairly against Gast Realty. Therefore, they felt strongly that this case should have been remanded back to a lower court for retrial rather than being decided at Supreme Court level.