In the case of Giles et al. v. Vette et al., 1923, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiffs, Giles and others, were heirs to a deceased man who had left his estate to his wife during her lifetime; upon her death, it was supposed to be divided among his children from an earlier marriage (the plaintiffs). However, after the husband's death but before she died herself, the widow sold some of this land in Missouri to defendants Vette and others without notifying or obtaining consent from these future inheritors. The main issue at hand was whether such sale by life tenant is valid under Missouri law when remaindermen are not notified or their consent obtained. The court ruled that under Missouri law such sale is indeed valid as long as it does not damage or devalue what remains for those next in line for inheritance (remaindermen), which wasn't proven by plaintiffs here. This decision upheld lower courts' rulings dismissing plaintiff's suit against buyers on grounds that they didn't show any harm done due to this transaction while also clarifying legal principles regarding property rights of life tenants versus remaindermen.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Giles et al. v. Vette et al., 1923, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling denying damages for an alleged breach of contract was incorrect. The dissent believed that there had been a clear violation of contractual obligations and thus, the plaintiffs were entitled to compensation for their losses. They disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "good faith" in business transactions and felt it should not be used as a shield against liability when one party fails to fulfill its agreed-upon duties. Furthermore, they contended that by allowing such breaches without penalty would undermine public confidence in commercial contracts and could potentially lead to widespread unfairness within business dealings.