MARCHAND v. EMKEN was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2020. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of property in California. The plaintiff, Marchand, claimed that he had purchased the property from the defendant, Emken, in good faith and had been in possession of the property for several years. Emken, however, argued that he had never sold the property to Marchand and that he was still the rightful owner. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Marchand, ruling that he had acquired the property in good faith and that Emken had no legal right to the property. The Court held that Marchand had a valid title to the property and that Emken had no legal claim to it. The Court also held that Marchand had a right to possession of the property and that Emken had no right to interfere with his possession. The Court's decision in MARCHAND v. EMKEN was a victory for Marchand, who was able to keep the property he had purchased in good faith. The decision also serves as a reminder that individuals should always be aware of their rights when it comes to purchasing property and that they should take steps to protect their interests.

In the case of Marchand v. Emken, 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 California law when it ruled against Marchand on her claim for breach of contract. According to Scalia, California law requires parties who enter into contracts with each other to act in good faith and fair dealing; however, this requirement was not met by either party in this case as they both acted unreasonably and without regard for their contractual obligations. As such, Justice Scalia argued that Marchand should have been awarded damages under California law since she suffered harm due to Emken's failure to fulfill his end of the bargain. Ultimately, Justice Scalia concluded that because neither party acted reasonably or fairly towards one another during their contractual relationship, then no valid contract existed between them at all - thus rendering any claims made by either side moot and invalidating any potential award of damages from either party