W Chappell v. Bradshaw was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1982. The case involved a dispute between two former business partners, Chappell and Bradshaw, over the ownership of a business. Chappell had originally owned the business, but had sold it to Bradshaw in exchange for a promissory note. When Bradshaw failed to make payments on the note, Chappell sued to regain ownership of the business. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Chappell, finding that the promissory note was a valid contract and that Bradshaw had breached it. The Court held that Chappell was entitled to the return of the business, as well as damages for the breach of contract. The Court also held that Chappell was entitled to an accounting of the business's profits since the sale, as well as interest on the unpaid balance of the promissory note. The decision in Chappell v. Bradshaw established important legal principles regarding the enforcement of contracts and the rights of parties to a contract. The case also serves as an important reminder of the importance of honoring contractual obligations.

W In the dissenting opinion of Chappell v. Bradshaw, Justice Scalia argued that Congress had not intended to create a cause of action for racial discrimination in violation of Title VII when it passed the Civil Rights Act. He noted that while Title VII does prohibit employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin; there is no explicit language allowing individuals to sue their employers for such violations. Furthermore, he argued that if Congress had wanted to provide this type of remedy they would have done so explicitly rather than leaving it up to interpretation by courts or agencies like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In conclusion, Justice Scalia believed that since Congress did not include an express provision creating a private right of action under Title VII then any attempt by lower courts or agencies like EEOC should be rejected as beyond its authority.