[DOWNLOAD] "Michael Jungbluth v. Hometown" by Supreme Court of Wisconsin * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free

📘 Read Now     📥 Download

eBook details

• Title: Michael Jungbluth v. Hometown
• Author : Supreme Court of Wisconsin
• Release Date : January 23, 1996
• Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
• Pages : * pages
• Size : 65 KB

Description

JON P. WILCOX, J. The nature of this controversy involves a statutory interpretation of the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law (WFDL), Wis. Stat. Ch. 135 (1993-94). The plaintiff-respondent-petitioner Michael Jungbluth (Jungbluth) seeks review of a published decision of the court of appeals, Jungbluth v. Hometown, Inc., 192 Wis. 2d 450, 531 N.W.2d 412 (Ct. App. 1995), reversing a judgment of the circuit court which had awarded Jungbluth damages and attorney fees totalling over $25,000, for the defendant-appellant Hometown, Inc.'s (Hometown) violation of the 90-day notice requirement in Wis. Stat. § 135.04 1 (1993-94). 2 Finding the statute at issue to be ambiguous, the court of appeals opined that the notice requirement of Wis. Stat. § 135.04 applies to a substantial change in the competitive circumstances of a dealership agreement. Jungbluth, 192 Wis. 2d at 456. The appellate court further held that because Hometown's conduct was permitted under the terms of the lease agreement, no substantial change in competitive circumstances of the dealership agreement had occurred. Id. at 462. On review before this court, Jungbluth raises two issues for our consideration. The first question is a very narrow one, and requires us to consider whether the court of appeals' attachment of the phrase ""of a dealership agreement"" on the end of the ""substantial change in competitive circumstances"" language in Wis. Stat. § 135.04 conflicts with the remedial purpose underlying the WFDL, as enunciated by the legislature. In accord with the well-established goal of statutory interpretation, we conclude that the insertion of the phrase ""of a dealership agreement"" within the statute would profoundly undermine the expressed intent of the legislature. The decision of the court of appeals unnecessarily confers power upon the grantor, a party the legislature has already concluded enjoys superior bargaining power, at the expense of the inherently inferior dealer.

Ebook Free Online "Michael Jungbluth v. Hometown" PDF ePub Kindle