In context to the case scenario of Braddock v. Braddock, i would say that the dissent disagreed with the majority just because they continued a debated discussion on whether David’s word actually gave an assurance upon. They basically took up the decision that both John’s profession and family standard did give them an appropriate reason as to why they should believe that it was completely unreasonable for John to consider David offer as a form of reliable or dependable assurance just because of the fact that he was not technically qualified for the job (Braddock v Braddock, 2009).