The Hoffman v. Overbey case in 1890 revolved around a dispute over land ownership and the validity of certain legal documents related to it. The plaintiff, Hoffman, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from Overbey through an intermediary named Smith. However, when he tried to take possession of the property, Overbey refused on grounds that his agreement with Smith was fraudulent and void due to misrepresentation by Smith about the terms agreed upon between him (Smith) and Hoffman for sale price which was significantly lower than what Overbey expected or would have agreed upon if known earlier. Hoffman sued for specific performance i.e., enforcement of contract as per original terms but both lower court and Supreme Court ruled against him stating that since there were clear indications of fraud involved in making this deal without proper disclosure about actual selling price negotiated with buyer (Hoffman), such contracts cannot be enforced under law even though buyer might not be directly involved or aware about these fraudulent actions by intermediaries like Smith here.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Hoffman v. Overbey argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider certain key aspects of contract law. The dissenting justices believed that a valid and enforceable contract had been formed between the parties, despite any potential irregularities or misunderstandings. They contended that both parties had demonstrated their intent to enter into an agreement and should therefore be held accountable for fulfilling their respective obligations under this agreement. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constituted "consideration" in this context, arguing instead that any benefit conferred upon one party by another could serve as sufficient consideration for a contract. Finally, they expressed concern over how the majority's ruling might impact future cases involving similar circumstances, fearing it could set a dangerous precedent whereby contracts are too easily invalidated due to minor discrepancies or disagreements.