Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 135 — DEALERSHIP PRACTICES
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 135.01 (2026)

Short title

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
135.01135.01 Short title. This chapter may be cited as the “Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law.”
135.01 HistoryHistory: 1973 c. 179; 2021 a. 238 s. 45.
135.01 AnnotationThis chapter was enacted for the protection of the interests of the dealer whose economic livelihood may be imperiled by the dealership grantor, whatever its size. Rossow Oil Co. v. Heiman, 72 Wis. 2d 696, 242 N.W.2d 176 (1976).
135.01 AnnotationThis chapter covers only agreements entered into after April 5, 1974. Wipperfurth v. U-Haul Co. of Western Wis., Inc., 101 Wis. 2d 586, 304 N.W.2d 767 (1981).
135.01 AnnotationThis chapter is constitutional; it may be applied to out-of-state dealers when provided by contract. C.A. Marine Sup. Co. v. Brunswick Corp., 557 F.2d 1163. See also Boatland, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp. 558 F.2d 818.
135.01 AnnotationWhen a dealer did not comply with all the terms of acceptance of a dealership agreement, no contract was formed and this chapter did not apply. Century Hardware Corp. v. Acme United Corp., 467 F. Supp. 350 (1979).
135.01 AnnotationDealing with the Dealers: Scope of the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law. Axe. WBB Aug. 1981.
135.01 AnnotationThe Fair Dealership Law: Good cause for review. Riteris & Robertson. WBB Mar. 1986.
135.01 AnnotationChanging Business Strategy Under the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law. Laufer. Wis. Law. Mar. 1991.
135.01 AnnotationAvoiding the Accidental Franchise. Modell & Fittante. Wis. Law. May 2003.
135.01 AnnotationDetermining “Community of Interest” under the WFDL. Wright. Wis. Law. Dec. 2004.
135.01 AnnotationUnderstanding the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law in Tough Economic Times. Wright. Wis. Law. Nov. 2009.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 64 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1977–2024 · leading case: Cent. Corp. v. Rsch. Prods. Corp., 2004 WI 76 (Wis. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cent. Corp. v. Rsch. Prods. Corp., 2004 WI 76 (Wis. 2004). · cites it 3× “Finally, Research contends that Central has overstated its work with replacement parts for the Aprilaire line, and contends that Central merely provides the Aprilaire parts and that Central does not repair, install, or remove defective parts.”
Ziegler Co., Inc. v. Rexnord, 433 N.W.2d 8 (Wis. 1988). · cites it 4× “Section 135.01, Stats. Whatever the agreement, it was entered into in 1980 for one year and then in 1981 the parties entered into a three-year contract.”
Kerl v. Dennis Rasmussen, Inc., 2004 WI 86 (Wis. 2004). · cites it 2× “, Wis. Stat. § 135.01 et seq. (2001-02), the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law.”
Winebow, Inc. v. Capitol-Husting Co., Inc., 914 N.W.2d 631 (Wis. 2018). · cites it 2× “§ 135.01 gives the title of chapter 135. Section 135.”
Boatland, Inc. & Robert L. Moore v. Brunswick Corp., 558 F.2d 818 (6th Cir. 1977). · cites it 2× “The sole issue in the appeal is whether or not the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law, Wis.Stat.Ann. §§ 135.01 et seq., applies to Boatland’s outboard motor dealership contract with Brunswick.”
Cutter v. Scott & Fetzer Co., 510 F. Supp. 905 (E.D. Wis. 1981). · cites it 2× “The plaintiff contends that the termination violates the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law, Wis.Stat. § 135.01 et seq. The plaintiff filed suit in circuit court for Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin; the defendant subsequently removed the action to this court.”
Moody v. Amoco Oil Co. (In Re Moody), 31 B.R. 216 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1983). · cites it 4× “, and the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law (“WFDL”), Wis.Stat. § 135.01 et seq. A preliminary injunction was granted after hearing held on April 19,1983.”
Johnson Worldwide Assocs., Inc. v. Brunton Co., 12 F. Supp. 2d 901 (E.D. Wis. 1998). · cites it 2× “Specific claims include trademark and trade dress infringement, fraudulent registration of a trademark by Silva Production, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, violation of the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law, Wis.”
Gallenberg Equip., Inc. v. Agromac Int'l, Inc., 10 F. Supp. 2d 1050 (E.D. Wis. 1998). · cites it 2× “Gallenberg then brought this lawsuit contending (1) Agromac was bound by Lockwood’s dealership arrangement with Gallen-berg under a theory of successor liability, and (2) Agromac violated the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law (WFDL), Wis. Stat. § 135.01 et. seq., which prohibits a…”
S&S SALES CORP. v. Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co., 435 F. Supp. 2d 879 (E.D. Wis. 2006). · cites it 2× “(“S&S”) brought this action in state court alleging that defendant Marvin Lumber & Cedar Company (“Marvin”) violated the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law (‘WFDL”), Wis. Stat. § 135.01 et seq., by constructively terminating it as a distributor of windows, without good cause.”
Morley-Murphy Co. v. Zenith Elec. Corp., 142 F.3d 373 (7th Cir. 1998). “See Wis. Stat. Ann. § 135.01 et seq. (West 1997) (Wisconsin Fan-Dealership Law hereafter “WFDL”).”
Greggar S. Isaksen D/B/A Applewood Stove Works v. Vermont Castings, Inc., 825 F.2d 1158 (7th Cir. 1987). “The other pendent claim relates to the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law, Wis. Stat. §§ 135.01 et seq., which among other things requires a franchisor — as Vermont Castings is conceded to be — to notify his franchisee in advance if the franchisor intends to do anything that will…”
Show all 64 citing cases →
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.