Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 241.02 (2026)
Agreements, what must be written
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
241.02(1)(1) In the following case every agreement shall be void unless such agreement or some note or memorandum thereof, expressing the consideration, be in writing and subscribed by the party charged therewith:
241.02(1)(a)(a) Every agreement that by its terms is not to be performed within one year from the making thereof.
241.02(1)(b)(b) Every special promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another person.
241.02(1)(c)(c) Every agreement, promise or undertaking made upon consideration of marriage, except mutual promises to marry.
241.02(3)(a)1.1. “Affiliate,” with respect to a bank, savings bank, savings and loan association, credit union, or farm credit institution, means a business entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the bank, savings bank, savings and loan association, credit union, or farm credit institution.
241.02(3)(a)2.2. “Financial institution” means a bank, savings bank, savings and loan association, or credit union organized under the laws of this state, another state, or the United States or a farm credit institution organized under the laws of the United States.
241.02(3)(b)(b) No action may be brought against a financial institution or its affiliate on or in connection with any of the following offers, promises, agreements, or commitments of the financial institution or its affiliate unless the offer, promise, agreement, or commitment is in writing, sets forth relevant terms and conditions, and is signed with an authorized signature by the financial institution or its affiliate and delivered to the party seeking to enforce the offer, promise, agreement, or commitment:
241.02(3)(b)1.1. An offer, promise, agreement, or commitment to lend money, grant or extend credit, or make any other financial accommodation.
241.02(3)(b)2.2. An offer, promise, agreement, or commitment to renew, extend, modify, or permit a delay in repayment or performance of a loan, extension of credit, or other financial accommodation.
241.02(3)(c)(c) An offer, promise, agreement, or commitment by a financial institution or its affiliate described in par. (b) may not be enforced under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
241.02(3)(d)(d) This subsection does not apply to credit transactions that are subject to chs. 421 to 427.
241.02(3)(e)(e) This subsection does not apply to any offer, promise, agreement, or commitment by a financial institution or its affiliate in connection with the issuance or use of a credit card, as defined in s. 421.301 (15), whether or not subject to chs. 421 to 427.
241.02(3)(f)(f) This subsection does not prohibit any action or claim under s. 100.18 or for fraudulent misrepresentation under common law.
241.02 AnnotationA stock-purchase plan is not subject to this section. Younger v. Rosenow Paper & Supply Co. 51 Wis. 2d 619, 188 N.W.2d 507 (1971).
241.02 AnnotationAlthough a contract was unenforceable due to the statute of frauds, a party providing services could recover upon quantum meruit. Theuerkauf v. Sutton, 102 Wis. 2d 176, 306 N.W.2d 651 (1981).
241.02 AnnotationThe plaintiff law firm was barred by sub. (1) (b) from enforcing the defendant’s oral promise to pay a friend’s legal fees. Cook & Franke, S. C. v. Meilman, 136 Wis. 2d 434, 402 N.W.2d 361 (Ct. App. 1987).
241.02 AnnotationA person who retained a law firm to represent the interests of another person was responsible for payment of the legal fees. This section did not require that there be a written agreement to pay. Brennan, Steil v. Colby, 189 Wis. 2d 344, 525 N.W.2d 273 (Ct. App. 1994).
241.02 AnnotationContracts for an indefinite duration are terminable at will or are void for failure to comply with sub. (1). Landess v. Borden, Inc. 667 F.2d 628 (1981).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 45
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1928–2026 · leading case: McLellan v. Charly, 2008 WI App 126 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008).
McLellan v. Charly, 2008 WI App 126 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “706 has a codified provision for equitable relief. In U.S. Oil Co.”
U.S. Oil Co. v. Midwest Auto Care Servs., Inc., 440 N.W.2d 825 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989). “Oil also contends that the Theune letter is a subsequent written confirmation of the promise sufficient to satisfy sec. 241.02(1)(b), Stats. It does not contend that the letter is sufficient to create a contract, but rather, that the letter is sufficient to allow enforcement of…”
Theuerkauf v. Sutton, 306 N.W.2d 651 (Wis. 1981). “" [10] Sec. 241.02, Stats., provides in part: "Agreements, what must be written.”
In Re Paternity of John RB, 2005 WI 6 (Wis. 2005). “Wis. Stat. § 241.02 (1). Accordingly, we do not address this issue.”
Wamser v. Bamberger, 305 N.W.2d 158 (Wis. Ct. App. 1981). “Section 241.02(1), Stats., reads as follows: 241.”
N. Grp., Inc. v. Tech 4 Kids Inc., 352 F. Supp. 3d 882 (E.D. Wis. 2018). “" Wis. Stat. § 241.02 (1)(a). There is no dispute that the contract Northern Group alleges T4K breached was oral.”
Ziolkowski v. Caterpillar, Inc., 800 F. Supp. 767 (E.D. Wis. 1992). “Wis.Stat. § 241.02(l)(a). The Defendant maintains that, even if there was a contract, it could not be performed within one year and, therefore, the contract claim is unenforceable under the statute of frauds.”
Cook & Franke, SC v. Meilman, 402 N.W.2d 361 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “Whether the promise fulfills the provisions of sec. 241.02, Stats., presents a question of law which we resolve without deference to the trial court.”
Kafka v. Pope, 533 N.W.2d 491 (Wis. 1995). “Kafka's claim does not rest on a special promise to answer for the debt of another — sec. 241.02(l)(b), Stats.; rather, it rests on the relationship between Kafka and Pope.”
Amoco Oil Co. v. Capitol Indem. Corp., 291 N.W.2d 883 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980). “On appeal Madden claims that the trial court should not have applied the parol evidence rule because the indemnity agreement is ambiguous; that the trial court erred in finding that the contract was not rescinded; and that the trial court should have found the subcontract…”
Superview Network, Inc. v. SuperAmerica, 827 F. Supp. 1392 (E.D. Wis. 1993). “auds Even if the parties had agreed to engage in their venture for three years, the Defendant points out that such an oral agreement would have been rendered void by the Wisconsin Statute of Frauds, which provides, in relevant part, that: In the following case every agreement…”
Jensen v. Janesville Sand & Gravel Co., 415 N.W.2d 559 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “The company alleges that Jensen’s benefits were terminated on October 30, 1975 and that the supplemental agreement upon which his action is based is not in writing and signed by Jensen as sec. 241.02, Stats., requires. Although we note the inconsistency between the general…”
— Wis. Stat. § 241.02(1) — 5 cases
Wamser v. Bamberger, 305 N.W.2d 158 (Wis. Ct. App. 1981). “Section 241.02(1), Stats., reads as follows: 241.”
Metro. Liquor Co. v. Heublein, Inc., 305 F. Supp. 946 (E.D. Wis. 1969).
Akrosil Div. of Int'l Paper Co. v. Ritrama Duramark, Inc., 847 F. Supp. 623 (E.D. Wis. 1994).
Elizabeth Anne Fitzgibbon v. Adam Paul Fitzgibbon (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).
Bich v. Ww3 LLC (E.D. Wis. 2022).
— Wis. Stat. § 241.02(1)(a) — 4 cases
Superview Network, Inc. v. SuperAmerica, 827 F. Supp. 1392 (E.D. Wis. 1993). “auds Even if the parties had agreed to engage in their venture for three years, the Defendant points out that such an oral agreement would have been rendered void by the Wisconsin Statute of Frauds, which provides, in relevant part, that: In the following case every agreement…”
Lost Lake Cranberry, Inc. v. Iron Cnty. (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).
Harry B. Mains v. Russ Darrow Grp., Inc. (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
John P. Halusan v. The Scan Grp., Inc. (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wis. Stat. § 241.02(1)(b) — 2 cases
U.S. Oil Co. v. Midwest Auto Care Servs., Inc., 440 N.W.2d 825 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989). “Oil also contends that the Theune letter is a subsequent written confirmation of the promise sufficient to satisfy sec. 241.02(1)(b), Stats. It does not contend that the letter is sufficient to create a contract, but rather, that the letter is sufficient to allow enforcement of…”
Bich v. Ww3 LLC (E.D. Wis. 2022).
— Wis. Stat. § 241.02(1)(c) — 1 case
Elizabeth Anne Fitzgibbon v. Adam Paul Fitzgibbon (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wis. Stat. § 241.02(2) — 1 case
Colamatteo v. Schenkenberger, 163 F. Supp. 693 (E.D. Wis. 1958).
— Wis. Stat. § 241.02(3)(b) — 1 case
Mohns Inc. v. BMO Harris Bank Nat'l Ass'n (Wis. Ct. App. 2019).
— Wis. Stat. § 241.02(b)(2) — 1 case
Bich v. Ww3 LLC (E.D. Wis. 2022).
— Wis. Stat. § 241.02(l)(a) — 2 cases
Ziolkowski v. Caterpillar, Inc., 800 F. Supp. 767 (E.D. Wis. 1992). “Wis.Stat. § 241.02(l)(a). The Defendant maintains that, even if there was a contract, it could not be performed within one year and, therefore, the contract claim is unenforceable under the statute of frauds.”
Bell v. Edward D. Jones & Co., 962 F. Supp. 1188 (W.D. Wis. 1996).
— Wis. Stat. § 241.02(l)(b) — 5 cases
U.S. Oil Co. v. Midwest Auto Care Servs., Inc., 440 N.W.2d 825 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989). “Oil also contends that the Theune letter is a subsequent written confirmation of the promise sufficient to satisfy sec. 241.02(1)(b), Stats. It does not contend that the letter is sufficient to create a contract, but rather, that the letter is sufficient to allow enforcement of…”
Kafka v. Pope, 533 N.W.2d 491 (Wis. 1995). “Kafka's claim does not rest on a special promise to answer for the debt of another — sec. 241.02(l)(b), Stats.; rather, it rests on the relationship between Kafka and Pope.”
Cook & Franke, SC v. Meilman, 402 N.W.2d 361 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “Whether the promise fulfills the provisions of sec. 241.02, Stats., presents a question of law which we resolve without deference to the trial court.”
Beach v. First Union Nat'l Bank of North Carolina (In Re Carley Capital Grp.), 118 B.R. 982 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1990).
Brennan, Steil, Basting & MacDougall, S.C. v. Colby, 525 N.W.2d 273 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994).
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.