Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 135.025 (2026)
Purposes; rules of construction; variation by contract
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
135.025(1)(1) This chapter shall be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying remedial purposes and policies.
135.025(2)(a)(a) To promote the compelling interest of the public in fair business relations between dealers and grantors, and in the continuation of dealerships on a fair basis;
135.025(2)(b)(b) To protect dealers against unfair treatment by grantors, who inherently have superior economic power and superior bargaining power in the negotiation of dealerships;
135.025(2)(c)(c) To provide dealers with rights and remedies in addition to those existing by contract or common law;
135.025(2)(d)(d) To govern all dealerships, including any renewals or amendments, to the full extent consistent with the constitutions of this state and the United States.
135.025(3)(3) The effect of this chapter may not be varied by contract or agreement. Any contract or agreement purporting to do so is void and unenforceable to that extent only.
135.025 AnnotationThe choice of law clause in a dealership agreement was unenforceable. Bush v. National School Studios, 139 Wis. 2d 635, 407 N.W.2d 883 (1987).
135.025 AnnotationFederal law required the enforcement of an arbitration clause even though that clause did not provide the relief guaranteed by this chapter, contrary to this section and s. 135.05. Madison Beauty Supply v. Helene Curtis, 167 Wis. 2d 237, 481 N.W.2d 644 (Ct. App. 1992).
135.025 AnnotationA forum-selection clause in a dealership agreement was not freely bargained for and was rendered ineffective under sub. (2) (b). Cutter v. Scott & Fetzer Co., 510 F. Supp. 905 (1981).
135.025 AnnotationThe relinquishment of territory and the signing of a guaranty agreement were changes insufficient to bring a relationship under this law. Rochester v. Royal Appliance Mfg. Co., 569 F. Supp. 736 (1983).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 87
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Thomas F. Benson v. City of Madison, 2017 WI 65 (Wis. 2017).
Thomas F. Benson v. City of Madison, 2017 WI 65 (Wis. 2017). “" But Wis. Stat. § 135.025 states that "[t]he effect of this chapter may not be varied by contract or agreement.”
Winebow, Inc. v. Capitol-Husting Co., Inc., 914 N.W.2d 631 (Wis. 2018). “135, also known as the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law, governs grantor-dealer relationships and "shall be liberally construed and applied to promote" the purposes set forth in Wis. Stat. § 135.025 (2), which include, for example, (1) fairness in business relationships between 1…”
Bush v. Nat'l Sch. Studios, Inc., 407 N.W.2d 883 (Wis. 1987). “The statement, sec. 135.025, Stats., in no way indicates that the statute is to apply only to very limited types of dealership arrangements.”
Jungbluth v. Hometown, Inc., 548 N.W.2d 519 (Wis. 1996). “ness relations between dealers and grantors, and in the continuation of dealerships on a fair basis; (b) To protect dealers against unfair treatment by grantors, who inherently have superior economic power and superior bargaining power in the negotiation of dealerships; (c) To…”
Girl Scouts of Manitou Council, Inc. v. Girl Scouts of United States of Am., Inc., 549 F.3d 1079 (7th Cir. 2008). “the continuation of dealerships on a fair basis,” Wis. Stat. § 135.025 (2)(a), and “[t]o protect dealers against unfair treatment by grantors, who inherently have superior economic power and superior bargaining power in the negotiation of dealerships,” id.”
Ziegler Co., Inc. v. Rexnord, 433 N.W.2d 8 (Wis. 1988). “Section 135.025 (2) Stats. [1] The essence of the law is the provision that the grantor cannot terminate, cancel, fail to renew or substantially change the competitive circumstances of a dealership *324 agreement without good cause.”
Cent. Corp. v. Rsch. Prods. Corp., 2004 WI 76 (Wis. 2004). “Wis. Stat. § 135.025 (2)(a) and (b). 9 To this end, the WFDL "shall be liberally construed to promote its underlying remedial purposes and policies.”
Baldewein Co. v. Tri-Clover, Inc., 2000 WI 20 (Wis. 2000). “[6] Wis. Stat. § 135.025 (2). *72 ¶ 25. A dealership is a symbiotic relationship.”
Coady v. Cross Country Bank, Inc., 2007 WI App 26 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007). “at 644 (quoting Wis. Stat. § 135.025 (2)(b)). Second, the Fair Dealership Law expressly states that it cannot " 'be varied by contract or agreement'" and that any such contract or agreement attempting to do so is " 'void and unenforceable to that extent.”
H. Phillips Co. v. Brown-Forman Distillers Corp., 483 F. Supp. 1289 (W.D. Wis. 1980). “” § 135.025. However, this direction by the legislature to the courts to construe and apply the statute liberally does not mean that the boundaries of its coverage should be construed expansively.”
Kealey Pharmacy & Home Care Serv., Inc. v. Walgreen Co., 539 F. Supp. 1357 (W.D. Wis. 1982). “§ 135.025 was created to provide that one of the purposes of the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law was “to govern all dealerships, including any renewals or amendments, to the full extent consistent with the constitutions of this state and the United States.”
Wipperfurth v. U-Haul Co. of W. Wisconsin, Inc., 304 N.W.2d 767 (Wis. 1981). “171, Laws of 1977, removed the obvious prospective clause and instead adopted a statement of purpose and legislative construction, sec. 135.025, Stats. [2] Several arguments are made whether the law was intended to have retroactive interpretation and, if so, then whether it is…”
— Wis. Stat. § 135.025(1) — 12 cases
Thomas F. Benson v. City of Madison, 2017 WI 65 (Wis. 2017). “" But Wis. Stat. § 135.025 states that "[t]he effect of this chapter may not be varied by contract or agreement.”
Super Valu Stores, Inc. v. D-Mart Food Stores, Inc., 431 N.W.2d 721 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988).
Baldewein Co. v. Tri-Clover, Inc., 2000 WI 20 (Wis. 2000). “[6] Wis. Stat. § 135.025 (2). *72 ¶ 25. A dealership is a symbiotic relationship.”
Praefke Auto Elec. & Battery Co. v. Tecumseh Prods. Co., 110 F. Supp. 2d 899 (E.D. Wis. 2000).
Moore v. Tandy Corp., Radio Shack Div., 631 F. Supp. 1037 (W.D. Wis. 1986).
— Wis. Stat. § 135.025(2) — 11 cases
Ziegler Co., Inc. v. Rexnord, 433 N.W.2d 8 (Wis. 1988). “Section 135.025 (2) Stats. [1] The essence of the law is the provision that the grantor cannot terminate, cancel, fail to renew or substantially change the competitive circumstances of a dealership *324 agreement without good cause.”
Thomas F. Benson v. City of Madison, 2017 WI 65 (Wis. 2017). “" But Wis. Stat. § 135.025 states that "[t]he effect of this chapter may not be varied by contract or agreement.”
Wipperfurth v. U-Haul Co. of W. Wisconsin, Inc., 297 N.W.2d 65 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980).
Cent. Corp. v. Rsch. Prods. Corp., 2004 WI 76 (Wis. 2004). “Wis. Stat. § 135.025 (2)(a) and (b). 9 To this end, the WFDL "shall be liberally construed to promote its underlying remedial purposes and policies.”
Wright-Moore Corp., Cross-Appellee v. Ricoh Corp., Cross-Appellant, 908 F.2d 128 (7th Cir. 1990).
— Wis. Stat. § 135.025(2)(a) — 10 cases
Winebow, Inc. v. Capitol-Husting Co., Inc., 914 N.W.2d 631 (Wis. 2018). “135, also known as the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law, governs grantor-dealer relationships and "shall be liberally construed and applied to promote" the purposes set forth in Wis. Stat. § 135.025 (2), which include, for example, (1) fairness in business relationships between 1…”
Cutter v. Scott & Fetzer Co., 510 F. Supp. 905 (E.D. Wis. 1981).
Ziegler Co., Inc. v. Rexnord, Inc., 407 N.W.2d 873 (Wis. 1987).
Kealey Pharmacy & Home Care Serv., Inc. v. Walgreen Co., 539 F. Supp. 1357 (W.D. Wis. 1982). “§ 135.025 was created to provide that one of the purposes of the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law was “to govern all dealerships, including any renewals or amendments, to the full extent consistent with the constitutions of this state and the United States.”
Wilburn v. Jack Cartwright, Inc., 514 F. Supp. 493 (E.D. Wis. 1981).
— Wis. Stat. § 135.025(2)(b) — 14 cases
Winebow, Inc. v. Capitol-Husting Co., Inc., 914 N.W.2d 631 (Wis. 2018). “135, also known as the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law, governs grantor-dealer relationships and "shall be liberally construed and applied to promote" the purposes set forth in Wis. Stat. § 135.025 (2), which include, for example, (1) fairness in business relationships between 1…”
Bush v. Nat'l Sch. Studios, Inc., 407 N.W.2d 883 (Wis. 1987). “The statement, sec. 135.025, Stats., in no way indicates that the statute is to apply only to very limited types of dealership arrangements.”
Cutter v. Scott & Fetzer Co., 510 F. Supp. 905 (E.D. Wis. 1981).
Kealey Pharmacy & Home Care Serv., Inc. v. Walgreen Co., 539 F. Supp. 1357 (W.D. Wis. 1982). “§ 135.025 was created to provide that one of the purposes of the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law was “to govern all dealerships, including any renewals or amendments, to the full extent consistent with the constitutions of this state and the United States.”
Wilburn v. Jack Cartwright, Inc., 514 F. Supp. 493 (E.D. Wis. 1981).
— Wis. Stat. § 135.025(2)(c) — 1 case
Dubis v. Nat'l Steel Prods. Co. (In Re Nat'l Structures, Inc.), 74 B.R. 986 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 1987).
— Wis. Stat. § 135.025(2)(d) — 7 cases
H. Phillips Co. v. Brown-Forman Distillers Corp., 483 F. Supp. 1289 (W.D. Wis. 1980). “” § 135.025. However, this direction by the legislature to the courts to construe and apply the statute liberally does not mean that the boundaries of its coverage should be construed expansively.”
Builder's World, Inc. v. Marvin Lumber & Cedar, Inc., 482 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (E.D. Wis. 2007).
Rochester v. Royal Appliance Mfg. Co., 569 F. Supp. 736 (W.D. Wis. 1983).
Kealey Pharmacy & Home Care Serv., Inc. v. Walgreen Co., 539 F. Supp. 1357 (W.D. Wis. 1982). “§ 135.025 was created to provide that one of the purposes of the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law was “to govern all dealerships, including any renewals or amendments, to the full extent consistent with the constitutions of this state and the United States.”
Wipperfurth v. U-Haul Co. of W. Wisconsin, Inc., 304 N.W.2d 767 (Wis. 1981). “171, Laws of 1977, removed the obvious prospective clause and instead adopted a statement of purpose and legislative construction, sec. 135.025, Stats. [2] Several arguments are made whether the law was intended to have retroactive interpretation and, if so, then whether it is…”
— Wis. Stat. § 135.025(3) — 14 cases
Bush v. Nat'l Sch. Studios, Inc., 407 N.W.2d 883 (Wis. 1987). “The statement, sec. 135.025, Stats., in no way indicates that the statute is to apply only to very limited types of dealership arrangements.”
Thomas F. Benson v. City of Madison, 2017 WI 65 (Wis. 2017). “" But Wis. Stat. § 135.025 states that "[t]he effect of this chapter may not be varied by contract or agreement.”
In Re Marriage of Nichols v. Nichols, 469 N.W.2d 619 (Wis. 1991).
Praefke Auto Elec. & Battery Co. v. Tecumseh Prods. Co., 110 F. Supp. 2d 899 (E.D. Wis. 2000).
Coady v. Cross Country Bank, Inc., 2007 WI App 26 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007). “at 644 (quoting Wis. Stat. § 135.025 (2)(b)). Second, the Fair Dealership Law expressly states that it cannot " 'be varied by contract or agreement'" and that any such contract or agreement attempting to do so is " 'void and unenforceable to that extent.”
— Wis. Stat. § 135.025(6) — 1 case
Builder's World, Inc. v. Marvin Lumber & Cedar, Inc., 482 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (E.D. Wis. 2007).
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.