The Robert Mitchell Furniture Company v. Selden Breck Construction Company case in 1921 revolved around a dispute over payment for furniture supplied by the plaintiff, Robert Mitchell Furniture Co., to the defendant, Selden Breck Construction Co. The construction company had been contracted to build and furnish an apartment building but failed to pay for the furniture after it was installed. The Supreme Court ruled that under Ohio law, which applied in this case, when a contractor agrees with an owner of property to erect a building on it and supply certain fixtures as part of the structure, those fixtures become real estate upon their attachment to the property. Therefore they cannot be repossessed by unpaid suppliers since they are no longer considered personal property or chattels but instead form part of realty owned by someone else (the landlord). This meant that despite not receiving payment from Selden Breck Construction Co., Robert Mitchell Furniture Co could not reclaim its furnishings because they were now legally considered part of the apartment building's real estate.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Robert Mitchell Furniture Company v. Selden Breck Construction Company argued that the majority's decision to hold the defendant liable for damages was incorrect. The dissent believed that there was no evidence to suggest that the defendant had acted negligently or failed to fulfill their contractual obligations, and thus should not be held responsible for any damage caused by unforeseen circumstances beyond their control. They contended that it is unreasonable and unfair to expect a contractor to anticipate every possible risk or eventuality, especially when such risks are not specified in the contract itself. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "reasonable care," arguing instead that this standard should take into account industry norms and practices rather than an abstract ideal of perfectionism.