policy behind rule in Wisconsin

1987Ver Hagen, supra, at 26 , 197 N.W.2d at 755 .

1987Ver Hagen, supra, at 26 , 197 N.W.2d at 755 . *87 [2] The rule was most recently approved by the supreme court in Marsh v. Milwaukee, 104 Wis. 2d 44, 47-49 , 310 N.W.2d 615, 616-17 (1981).

2022Id. 7 Nos. 2021AP371-CR 2021AP372-CR The policy behind this doctrine is to prohibit a defendant from profiting from his or her own wrongdoing.

2003In Koffman, 246 Wis. 2d 31, ¶ 29 , this court reiterated the explanation of the policy behind the rule given in Ellsworth, 235 Wis. 2d 678, ¶ 7 , stating: The tortfeasor who is legally responsible for causing injury is not relieved of his obligation to the victim simply because the victim had the foresight to arrange, or the good fortune to receive, benefits from a collateral source for injuries and expenses.

2003In Koffman, 246 Wis. 2d 31, ¶ 29 , this court reiterated the explanation of the policy behind the rule given in Ellsworth, 235 Wis. 2d 678, ¶ 7 , stating: The tortfeasor who is legally responsible for causing injury is not relieved of his obligation to the victim simply because the victim had the foresight to arrange, or the good fortune to receive, benefits from a collateral source for injuries and expenses.

2003In Koffman, 246 Wis. 2d 31, ¶ 29 , this court reiterated the explanation of the policy behind the rule given in Ellsworth, 235 Wis. 2d 678, ¶ 7 , stating: The tortfeasor who is legally responsible for causing injury is not relieved of his obligation to the victim simply because the victim had the foresight to arrange, or the good fortune to receive, benefits from a collateral source for injuries and expenses.

2003In Koffman, 246 Wis. 2d 31, ¶ 29 , this court reiterated the explanation of the policy behind the rule given in Ellsworth, 235 Wis. 2d 678, ¶ 7 , stating: The tortfeasor who is legally responsible for causing injury is not relieved of his obligation to the victim simply because the victim had the foresight to arrange, or the good fortune to receive, benefits from a collateral source for injuries and expenses.

1991Id. at 329 , 401 N.W.2d at 826 .

1991Id. at 329 , 401 N.W.2d at 826 .

1982The clause was written in the terms of the statute allowing escalation, sec. 215.21(3) (b), Stats., and the court construed the statute and the note in light of “the scope of the statute, the policy behind the clause, [and] the ability of savings and loan associations to effectively manage the funds of its members and at the same time provide funds for borrowers.” Id. at 183 , 237 N.W.2d at 734 . *656 In Beal, 90 Wis.2d at 176-77 , 279 N.W.2d at 695 , federal regulations prevented the association from increasing the monthly payment or extending the loan.

1982The clause was written in the terms of the statute allowing escalation, sec. 215.21(3) (b), Stats., and the court construed the statute and the note in light of “the scope of the statute, the policy behind the clause, [and] the ability of savings and loan associations to effectively manage the funds of its members and at the same time provide funds for borrowers.” Id. at 183 , 237 N.W.2d at 734 . *656 In Beal, 90 Wis.2d at 176-77 , 279 N.W.2d at 695 , federal regulations prevented the association from increasing the monthly payment or extending the loan.

1982The clause was written in the terms of the statute allowing escalation, sec. 215.21(3) (b), Stats., and the court construed the statute and the note in light of “the scope of the statute, the policy behind the clause, [and] the ability of savings and loan associations to effectively manage the funds of its members and at the same time provide funds for borrowers.” Id. at 183 , 237 N.W.2d at 734 . *656 In Beal, 90 Wis.2d at 176-77 , 279 N.W.2d at 695 , federal regulations prevented the association from increasing the monthly payment or extending the loan.

1982The clause was written in the terms of the statute allowing escalation, sec. 215.21(3) (b), Stats., and the court construed the statute and the note in light of “the scope of the statute, the policy behind the clause, [and] the ability of savings and loan associations to effectively manage the funds of its members and at the same time provide funds for borrowers.” Id. at 183 , 237 N.W.2d at 734 . *656 In Beal, 90 Wis.2d at 176-77 , 279 N.W.2d at 695 , federal regulations prevented the association from increasing the monthly payment or extending the loan.

1965Co. v. Reed (1900), 197 Pa. St. 359, 47 Atl. 205 , for the policy behind this rule: *372 “A guarantor of future credit or advancing is entitled to notice from the party giving the credit of his acceptance of the guaranty, inasmuch as such notice enables the guarantor to know the nature and extent of his liability, to exercise due diligence in guarding himself against losses which might otherwise be unknown to him, and to avail himself of the appropriate means in law and equity to compel the other parties to discharge him from future responsibility. . . .