Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 407.303 (2026)
Diversion; reconsignment; change of instructions
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
407.303(1)(1) Unless the bill of lading otherwise provides, a carrier may deliver the goods to a person or destination other than that stated in the bill or may otherwise dispose of the goods, without liability for misdelivery, on instructions from any of the following:
407.303(1)(b)(b) The consignor on a nonnegotiable bill even if the consignee has given contrary instructions.
407.303(1)(c)(c) The consignee on a nonnegotiable bill in the absence of contrary instructions from the consignor, if the goods have arrived at the billed destination or if the consignee is in possession of the tangible bill or in control of the electronic bill.
407.303(1)(d)(d) The consignee on a nonnegotiable bill, if the consignee is entitled as against the consignor to dispose of the goods.
407.303(2)(2) Unless instructions described in sub. (1) are included in a negotiable bill of lading, a person to which the bill is duly negotiated may hold the bailee according to the original terms.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 1993–1994 · leading case: Met-Al, Inc. v. Hansen Storage Co., 828 F. Supp. 1369 (E.D. Wis. 1993).
Met-Al, Inc. v. Hansen Storage Co., 828 F. Supp. 1369 (E.D. Wis. 1993). “Wis.Stat. § 407.303. III. DISCUSSION A. Met-Al’s Claims Against DEI Met-Al now seeks damages for the loss of 157 truckloads of aluminum worth $4.”
Met-Al, Inc. v. Hansen Storage Co., 844 F. Supp. 485 (E.D. Wis. 1994). “§ 407.303(l)(a) (West 1964). Met-Al responds that, because Mayheiv and Phelps remain effective despite the passage of the UCC, “[t]his [C]ourt [properly] rejected the premise that MBI had voidable title, an unidentified term under the Code.”
— Wis. Stat. § 407.303(l)(a) — 1 case
Met-Al, Inc. v. Hansen Storage Co., 844 F. Supp. 485 (E.D. Wis. 1994). “§ 407.303(l)(a) (West 1964). Met-Al responds that, because Mayheiv and Phelps remain effective despite the passage of the UCC, “[t]his [C]ourt [properly] rejected the premise that MBI had voidable title, an unidentified term under the Code.”
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.