In the case of Wells, Fargo & Company v. Neiman-Marcus Company in 1912, the dispute revolved around a shipment of furs that was lost during transport by Wells Fargo. The furs were being shipped from New York to Texas for Neiman Marcus and were valued at $5,000. However, due to an error on behalf of Wells Fargo's employees who incorrectly labeled the package as worth only $50 (the maximum liability under their shipping contract), when it was lost they refused to pay more than this amount in damages. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Neiman Marcus stating that even though there had been a mistake made by its employee regarding the value declaration on the package, it did not absolve them from their responsibility towards ensuring safe delivery or paying full compensation for loss incurred during transit.

The dissenting opinion in the Wells, Fargo & Company v. Neiman-Marcus Company case argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of law and equity. The dissent contended that Wells Fargo had no right to recover damages because it failed to prove any actual loss resulting from Neiman Marcus' actions. It also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "unjust enrichment," arguing that this principle should not apply when there is no evidence of wrongdoing or fraudulent intent on part of the defendant (Neiman Marcus). Furthermore, they believed that allowing recovery without proof of loss would set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances.