Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 100.01 (2026)
Produce wholesalers, unfair conduct, liability for damages
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
100.01(1)(a)(a) “Broker” means a person engaged in negotiating sales or purchases of produce for or on behalf of the seller or the buyer.
100.01(1)(b)(b) “Commission merchant” means a person engaged in receiving produce for sale for or on behalf of another.
100.01(1)(c)(c) “Dealer” means a person who for resale buys, sells, offers or exposes for sale, or has in his or her possession with intent to sell, any produce except that raised by him or her and that purchased by him or her exclusively for his or her own sale at retail.
100.01(1)(d)(d) “Produce” means any kinds of fresh fruit or fresh vegetable, including potatoes and onions intended for planting.
100.01(2)(a)(a) For a dealer to reject or fail to deliver in accordance with the contract, without reasonable cause, produce bought or sold or contracted to be bought or sold by such dealer.
100.01(2)(b)(b) For a commission merchant, without reasonable cause, to fail to deliver produce in accordance with the contract.
100.01(2)(c)(c) For a commission merchant to fail to render a true itemized statement of the sale or other disposition of a consignment of produce with full payment promptly in accordance with the terms of the agreement between the parties, or, if no agreement, within 15 days after receipt of the produce. Such statement of sale shall clearly express the gross amount for which the produce was sold and the proper, usual or agreed selling charge, and other expenses necessarily and actually incurred or agreed to in the handling thereof.
100.01(2)(d)(d) For a commission merchant or broker to make a fraudulent charge in respect to produce.
100.01(2)(e)(e) For a commission merchant or broker to discard, dump or destroy without reasonable cause produce received by the merchant or broker.
100.01(2)(f)(f) For a produce wholesaler to make for a fraudulent purpose or for the purpose of depressing the market a false or misleading statement concerning the grade, condition, markings, quality, quantity, market quotations or disposition of any produce or of the condition of the market therefor.
100.01(2)(g)(g) For a produce wholesaler to receive produce from another state or country for sale or resale within this state and give the buyer the impression that the commodity is of Wisconsin origin.
100.01(2)(h)(h) For a produce wholesaler, for a fraudulent purpose, to remove, alter or tamper with any card, stencil, stamp, tag, certificate or other notice placed upon any container or railroad car containing produce by the original packer or by or under authority of any federal or state inspector and bearing a certificate as to the grower, grade or quality of such produce.
100.01(3)(3) Acceptance implied. If any dealer fails to notify the seller of rejection within 24 hours after the dealer receives notice of arrival of the produce, the dealer will be deemed to have accepted it as being in accordance with the contract.
100.01(4)(4) Double damages. A produce wholesaler who violates any provision of sub. (2) shall be liable to any person injured thereby for twice the amount of damages sustained in consequence of such violation and such liability may be enforced by suit in any court of competent jurisdiction.
100.01 AnnotationIt defies common sense to think that the legislature intended to allow parties to contract around the double damages provision in sub. (4). Nothing in this section suggests that the legislature intended the statute’s applicability to rise or fall on the relative sophistication of the parties. Wisconsin Central Farms, Inc. v. Heartland Agricultural Marketing, Inc., 2006 WI App 199, 296 Wis. 2d 779, 724 N.W.2d 364, 04-2971.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1973–2008 · leading case: Wisconsin Cent. Farms, Inc. v. Heartland Agric. Mktg., Inc., 2006 WI App 199 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006).
Wisconsin Cent. Farms, Inc. v. Heartland Agric. Mktg., Inc., 2006 WI App 199 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “Central Farms sued Heartland, alleging breach of contract and a violation of Wis. Stat. § 100.01 . 4 The case proceeded to a jury trial.”
Cook v. Pub. Storage, Inc., 2008 WI App 155 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “01(2) (1999-2000) defining unfair conduct and was the "sole incentive to private parties to initiate actions to enforcé the statute.”
Carpets by the Carload, Inc. v. Warren, 368 F. Supp. 1075 (E.D. Wis. 1973). “See § 100.01 et seq., Wis.Stats. (1971). Several weeks later, the plaintiff was notified by the defendant newspapers that no further credit would be extended to it for the purpose of purchasing advertising space.”
Crave v. Tracy, 955 F. Supp. 1047 (E.D. Wis. 1996). “The definitions in § 100.01 were in existence prior to the Emergency Order and were not changed by either the Emergency Order or Final Rule.”
— Wis. Stat. § 100.01(1) — 1 case
Wisconsin Cent. Farms, Inc. v. Heartland Agric. Mktg., Inc., 2006 WI App 199 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “Central Farms sued Heartland, alleging breach of contract and a violation of Wis. Stat. § 100.01 . 4 The case proceeded to a jury trial.”
— Wis. Stat. § 100.01(2) — 2 cases
Cook v. Pub. Storage, Inc., 2008 WI App 155 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “01(2) (1999-2000) defining unfair conduct and was the "sole incentive to private parties to initiate actions to enforcé the statute.”
Wisconsin Cent. Farms, Inc. v. Heartland Agric. Mktg., Inc., 2006 WI App 199 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “Central Farms sued Heartland, alleging breach of contract and a violation of Wis. Stat. § 100.01 . 4 The case proceeded to a jury trial.”
— Wis. Stat. § 100.01(2)(a) — 1 case
Wisconsin Cent. Farms, Inc. v. Heartland Agric. Mktg., Inc., 2006 WI App 199 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “Central Farms sued Heartland, alleging breach of contract and a violation of Wis. Stat. § 100.01 . 4 The case proceeded to a jury trial.”
— Wis. Stat. § 100.01(3) — 1 case
Wisconsin Cent. Farms, Inc. v. Heartland Agric. Mktg., Inc., 2006 WI App 199 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “Central Farms sued Heartland, alleging breach of contract and a violation of Wis. Stat. § 100.01 . 4 The case proceeded to a jury trial.”
— Wis. Stat. § 100.01(4) — 2 cases
Wisconsin Cent. Farms, Inc. v. Heartland Agric. Mktg., Inc., 2006 WI App 199 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “Central Farms sued Heartland, alleging breach of contract and a violation of Wis. Stat. § 100.01 . 4 The case proceeded to a jury trial.”
Cook v. Pub. Storage, Inc., 2008 WI App 155 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “01(2) (1999-2000) defining unfair conduct and was the "sole incentive to private parties to initiate actions to enforcé the statute.”
— Wis. Stat. § 100.01(l)(c) — 1 case
Wisconsin Cent. Farms, Inc. v. Heartland Agric. Mktg., Inc., 2006 WI App 199 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “Central Farms sued Heartland, alleging breach of contract and a violation of Wis. Stat. § 100.01 . 4 The case proceeded to a jury trial.”
— Wis. Stat. § 100.01(l)(d) — 1 case
Wisconsin Cent. Farms, Inc. v. Heartland Agric. Mktg., Inc., 2006 WI App 199 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “Central Farms sued Heartland, alleging breach of contract and a violation of Wis. Stat. § 100.01 . 4 The case proceeded to a jury trial.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.