GAGE v. KAUFMAN was a Supreme Court case from the year 1891. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a piece of land. The plaintiff, Gage, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Kaufman, to purchase a piece of land for $1,000. Gage paid Kaufman the full amount, but Kaufman refused to transfer the deed to Gage. Gage then sued Kaufman for breach of contract. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gage, finding that Kaufman had breached the contract and was liable for damages. The Court held that Kaufman was obligated to transfer the deed to Gage, and that Gage was entitled to recover the full amount of the purchase price plus interest. The Court also held that Gage was entitled to recover damages for the delay in transferring the deed. The ruling in GAGE v. KAUFMAN established that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages, and that the non-breaching party is entitled to recover the full amount of the purchase price plus interest. This case is still cited today as an example of the legal principle of contract law.

In the case of Gage v. Kaufman, Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrong and should be overturned. He believed that the court had failed to properly interpret the language of Section 523(a)(2) of Title 11, United States Code (the Bankruptcy Code), which states that debts for money obtained by false pretenses or fraud are not dischargeable in bankruptcy proceedings. According to Scalia, this section does not require proof of intent on behalf of debtor; rather it only requires proof that debt was acquired through fraudulent means. Furthermore, he argued that Congress did not intend for courts to impose an additional requirement such as proving intent when determining whether a debt is non-dischargeable under Section 523(a)(2). Therefore, according to Scalia’s dissent, because there is no evidence showing any intention on part of debtor with regards to obtaining money through false pretenses or fraudulence , his debt should have been discharged in bankruptcy proceedings and thus overturning majority’s decision would be appropriate .