¶34 In sum, Volvo argues that the Division [of Hearings and Appeals] did not follow the dictionary definition of "cured" when it determined that Wausau Truck had "recommitted" itself to fulfilling its obligations under the dealer agreement. Volvo asserts that the Division therefore took an erroneous approach to the statutory requirement that the breaching party had to cure the breach.See 2009-2010 Term of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
¶35 In contrast, Wausau Truck argues that the statutory word "cured" [in Wis. Stat. §218.0116(1)(i)1.b.] should be defined according to its usage in contract law.
¶36 We agree with Wausau Truck. Technical words or phrases in a statute should be given their technical or specialized meaning. Bruno v. Milwaukee County, 2003 WI 28, ¶¶8, 20, 260 Wis. 2d 633, 660 N.W.2d 656.
Dealer need not remedy past breach of contract: Change in ways ‘cures’ breach of contract, by David Ziemer, Wisconsin Law Journal
Wisconsin Supreme Court clarifies meaning of “cure” in contract breach, by Deborah Spanic, State Bar of Wisconsin