Davies v. Miller was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1871. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a piece of land. The plaintiff, Davies, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Miller, to purchase a piece of land for a certain sum of money. However, Miller refused to transfer the deed to Davies, claiming that the contract was invalid. Davies then brought a suit against Miller in the Supreme Court, arguing that the contract was valid and that Miller was obligated to transfer the deed. The Supreme Court agreed with Davies, ruling that the contract was valid and that Miller was obligated to transfer the deed. The Court also held that Miller was liable for damages for his breach of the contract. The case of Davies v. Miller is an important precedent in contract law, as it established the principle that a contract is binding and enforceable even if it is not in writing. This case also established the principle that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages.

In the case of Davies v. Miller, Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrong because it failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant statutory language. He noted that under the plain meaning of the statute, an employer is not required to provide notice or pay wages for any period after an employee has been discharged from their job. Furthermore, he argued that Congress had specifically chosen not to include such provisions in this particular law and thus should be respected by courts when interpreting its scope. Finally, Justice Scalia concluded his dissent by noting that if Congress wanted employers to be liable for post-discharge wages then they would have explicitly included such language in this statute instead of leaving it up to judicial interpretation.