In the Mackenzie v. A. Engelhard & Sons Company case of 1924, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of A. Engelhard & Sons Company, a gold refining company accused by Alexander Mackenzie for breach of contract and fraud. The dispute arose when Mackenzie delivered raw gold to be refined and returned as pure gold bars but received less than expected due to alleged losses during the refining process which he claimed was against their agreement that any loss would not exceed 0.5%. However, upon review, it was found that there were no explicit terms in their contract regarding such losses or guarantees on return quantities after refinement; instead it only specified charges based on weight before and after processing with an understanding that some loss may occur due to impurities removal during refinement process without specifying a limit for such losses.

In the dissenting opinion for Mackenzie v. A. Engelhard & Sons Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold Engelhard & Sons liable for damages suffered by Mackenzie due to an explosion of a chemical product sold by them was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there wasn't sufficient evidence provided to prove negligence on part of Engelhard & Sons in their handling or packaging of the product, nor any proof showing they had knowledge about its dangerous nature when used in certain conditions as done by Mackenzie. They also pointed out that even if such knowledge existed, it wouldn't necessarily mean liability should be imposed upon them because businesses cannot foresee and warn against every possible misuse of their products which could lead to harm. Therefore, according to this view, unless clear proof is given demonstrating a company knowingly acted with disregard towards potential dangers associated with using their products improperly or without necessary precautions - something not established here - then holding them responsible would be unjustified and set a concerning precedent.