Thursday, March 11, 2010

Decision in 'Volvo Trucks North America v. Wausau Truck Center, Inc.' 2010 WI 15

Wisconsin Supreme Court decision today in this case (2008AP1385) affirming the Court of Appeals. See Argument. Opinion by Chief Justice Abrahamson.
¶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.

¶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.
See 2009-2010 Term of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

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