In the case of Remington v. Central Pacific Railroad Company, 1904, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract for land purchase between Remington and the railroad company was valid. The dispute arose when Remington claimed that he had purchased certain lands from Central Pacific Railroad under an agreement made in 1869 but never received proper title deeds to these lands. He sought specific performance of this alleged contract or damages for its breach. The court ruled against Remington stating that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove that such a contract existed as no written record could be produced by either party involved in the transaction. Furthermore, it held that even if such a contract did exist, it would not have been legally binding due to non-compliance with statutory requirements related to land sales at that time which required contracts involving real estate transactions exceeding one year's duration must be in writing. Therefore, since neither condition was met - existence of concrete proof nor compliance with legal requirements -the court concluded there was no enforceable agreement between both parties and denied any relief sought by Mr.Remington.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Remington v. Central Pacific Railroad Company argued that the majority's decision was flawed because it failed to consider important aspects of contract law and equity. The dissenting justices believed that Remington had a valid claim against the railroad company for breach of contract, as he had fulfilled his obligations under their agreement while they did not fulfill theirs. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of California state law, arguing that it should have been applied more broadly to protect individuals like Remington from corporate wrongdoing. Furthermore, they contended that by allowing corporations to escape liability through legal technicalities, the court was undermining public trust and confidence in the justice system.