In the case of Harris et al. v. Avery Brundage Co. et al., 1938, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and contractual obligations between two parties: Harris and others (plaintiffs) versus Avery Brundage Company and others (defendants). The plaintiffs had entered into an agreement with the defendants to purchase a piece of land in Chicago, Illinois for $90,000 but later discovered that there were restrictions against building apartment buildings on this plot which significantly reduced its value. They sought to rescind their contract due to these undisclosed restrictions arguing fraudulent misrepresentation by omission from the sellers' side. The court held that while it was true that silence or non-disclosure could constitute fraud under certain circumstances where there is a duty to disclose material facts known only by one party; however, in this particular instance no such obligation existed as both parties were dealing at arm's length without any fiduciary relationship involved. Therefore, since buyers are expected to exercise reasonable diligence before entering into contracts especially concerning real estate transactions where public records are available for inspection - unless specifically warranted otherwise by seller - they cannot claim relief based solely upon their own failure in not discovering relevant information about property limitations beforehand.

In the dissenting opinion for Harris et al. v. Avery Brundage Co. et al., Justice Black argued that the majority's decision to dismiss the case was premature and potentially harmful to future cases involving labor disputes and antitrust laws. He believed that there were still important questions left unanswered, such as whether or not a group of employees could be considered a "combination" under antitrust law, which would have significant implications for collective bargaining rights in general. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of certain aspects of both state and federal law regarding labor relations, arguing instead that these laws should be interpreted more broadly in order to protect workers' rights rather than limiting them based on technicalities or narrow interpretations.