Kenaday v. Edwards was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1988. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of property in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Kenneth Kenaday, claimed that he had purchased the property from the defendant, Robert Edwards, in a private sale. Edwards, however, argued that the sale was invalid because he had not received any money for the property. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Kenaday, finding that the sale was valid and that Kenaday was the rightful owner of the property. The Court held that the sale was valid because it was supported by a written contract, and that the contract was sufficient to establish the sale as a valid transaction. The Court also noted that the contract was supported by other evidence, such as the fact that Kenaday had taken possession of the property and had made improvements to it. In its decision, the Court also noted that the sale was not invalidated by the fact that no money had changed hands. The Court held that the lack of money was not a necessary element of a valid sale, and that the contract was sufficient to establish the sale as valid. The Court also noted that the parties had acted in good faith and that the sale was not fraudulent. Overall, the Supreme Court's decision in Kenaday v. Edwards established that a sale could be valid even if no money had changed hands, as long as the sale was supported by a written contract and other evidence. The Court's decision also established that the parties had acted in good faith and that the sale was not fraudulent.

In the Supreme Court case of Kenaday v. Edwards, Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority’s decision was wrong and should be overturned. He disagreed with their interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, arguing that it did not provide protection for employees who were discriminated against based on sexual orientation or gender identity. He further argued that Congress had never intended to include such protections when they passed this law and thus any expansion beyond what was originally written would have to come from them directly rather than through judicial interpretation. In conclusion, Justice Scalia believed that while discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is wrong, it should not be addressed by expanding existing laws but instead through new legislation specifically crafted to address these issues.