Wisconsin Statute Chapter 553, the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law, governs franchise relationships within the state. A critical aspect of this law pertains to the grounds for termination, cancellation, or substantial change in the competitive circumstances of a dealership agreement. Section 553.27(2) outlines specific conditions under which a grantor may take such actions. These conditions are generally limited to instances where the dealer has failed to comply with a reasonable and material term of the franchise agreement, provided the grantor has given the dealer reasonable advance notice and a reasonable opportunity to cure the deficiency. Other permissible grounds include the dealer’s insolvency, assignment of assets for the benefit of creditors, or conviction of a crime related to the dealership’s business. However, the law also places a significant burden on the grantor to demonstrate good cause for termination. Good cause is defined by the statute and often involves a failure to substantially meet performance quotas or objectives, but this must be evaluated in the context of the entire agreement and the grantor’s own actions. The concept of “substantial change in competitive circumstances” is also a key element, but it typically refers to changes initiated by the grantor that significantly alter the dealer’s ability to operate profitably, not simply market fluctuations. Therefore, a grantor cannot terminate a dealership agreement solely because a competitor offers a more attractive product, unless this leads to a demonstrable failure by the dealer to meet agreed-upon performance standards that themselves constitute good cause. The law prioritizes fairness and provides dealers with protections against arbitrary or unjustified termination.

The Wisconsin Franchise Investment Law, specifically Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 553, governs franchise offerings and sales within the state. A crucial aspect of this law is the registration requirement for franchises unless an exemption applies. When a franchisor proposes to offer a franchise in Wisconsin, they must either register the franchise with the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions (DFI) or qualify for an exemption. The law outlines various exemptions, such as those for existing franchisees, certain financially strong franchisors, or specific types of franchise agreements that pose less risk to investors. Failure to comply with these registration or exemption requirements can lead to significant penalties, including rescission rights for the franchisee and potential civil or criminal liabilities for the franchisor. The core principle is to provide prospective franchisees with material information to make informed decisions, which is achieved through either the registration process or the application of a statutory exemption. Therefore, a franchisor must carefully assess their situation against the defined exemptions to determine the appropriate course of action before making an offer in Wisconsin.

The Wisconsin Franchise Investment Law, under Chapter 553 of the Wisconsin Statutes, requires franchisors to register their franchise offerings with the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions unless an exemption applies. Specifically, Section 553.22 of the Wisconsin Statutes outlines various exemptions. One such exemption is for a franchisor who has been in business for at least five years and has a net worth of not less than \$1,000,000, and who has at least 25 franchisees who have been operating under the terms of a franchise agreement for at least five years. Another exemption, relevant to the scenario, is for offers made to existing franchisees who have been operating under a franchise agreement for at least two years and who are offered a renewal, extension, or transfer of the existing franchise. The scenario describes a franchisor, “Dairy Delights,” who has been operating in Wisconsin for six years and is offering a new franchise agreement to an existing franchisee who has been operating their Dairy Delights location for three years. This offer is for an additional territory adjacent to their current business. Since the offer is to an existing franchisee who has been operating for more than the required two years and is being offered a new territory, which can be considered an extension or a modification of their existing relationship, it likely falls under the exemption for offers to existing franchisees. Therefore, registration is not required for this specific offer in Wisconsin.

Wisconsin franchise law, specifically under Wis. Stat. § 553.25, governs the termination, cancellation, or non-renewal of a franchise agreement. A franchisor seeking to terminate a franchise must provide the franchisee with a minimum of 90 days’ written notice. This notice must be delivered by certified mail or personal service and must state all the reasons for the termination, cancellation, or non-renewal. Furthermore, the law requires that the franchisor also provide the franchisee with a reasonable period to cure any alleged default, unless the default is incapable of cure. The specific duration of the cure period is not fixed by statute but is determined by the nature of the default, requiring a fact-specific analysis. The franchisor must also offer to repurchase the franchisee’s inventory, supplies, and equipment that are still in good condition and are unique to the franchise business, at a fair market value. The purpose of these provisions is to protect franchisees from arbitrary termination and to ensure a fair transition. The franchisor’s failure to adhere to these notice and cure requirements can render the termination invalid and expose the franchisor to potential legal remedies for wrongful termination.

Wisconsin franchise law, specifically Chapter 135 of the Wisconsin Statutes, governs the relationship between franchisors and franchisees within the state. A key aspect of this law is the protection afforded to franchisees against certain actions by franchisors. Section 135.03 of the Wisconsin Statutes prohibits a franchisor from terminating, canceling, failing to renew, or substantially changing the competitive circumstances of a franchise agreement without good cause. Good cause is defined in Section 135.02(4) and generally refers to the franchisee’s failure to comply with the material provisions of the franchise agreement, provided the franchisee has been given reasonable time to cure the default. However, the law also recognizes situations where a franchisor might need to make changes for legitimate business reasons that are not directly tied to the franchisee’s performance. Section 135.025(2)(a) allows for substantial changes to competitive circumstances if they are made uniformly and are reasonably necessary for the protection of the franchisor’s business or the welfare of the franchisees or the public. This provision is crucial for franchisors to adapt to market conditions or implement system-wide improvements. The question hinges on distinguishing between a change made for the franchisee’s alleged non-compliance versus a change made for broader, uniform business reasons. The scenario describes a franchisor implementing a new mandatory software system across all its Wisconsin locations. This is presented as a measure to enhance operational efficiency and customer data management for the entire network, not as a response to any specific franchisee’s underperformance or breach of contract. Therefore, this action falls under the purview of Section 135.025(2)(a), which permits such uniform and reasonably necessary changes. The franchisor is not terminating or failing to renew the franchise; it is mandating a system-wide operational upgrade.

The Wisconsin Franchise Investment Law, specifically Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 553, outlines the registration and disclosure requirements for franchise offerings within the state. A crucial aspect of this law pertains to exemptions from these requirements. One significant exemption is for certain renewals or extensions of existing franchise agreements. Wisconsin Statutes Section 553.23(1)(a) provides an exemption for any offer or sale of a franchise if the franchisee is an existing franchisee who has a prior franchise relationship with the franchisor and the renewal or extension is offered pursuant to the terms of the existing franchise agreement or a previously approved offering. This exemption is designed to avoid imposing duplicative registration and disclosure burdens on established franchisor-franchisee relationships where the franchisee already possesses knowledge of the franchise system and its associated risks. The key is that the renewal or extension must be based on the existing agreement’s terms or a previously registered offering, ensuring that the franchisee is not being presented with a substantially new or different opportunity that would warrant fresh disclosure. Therefore, when a franchisor offers a renewal to an existing franchisee that is consistent with the original agreement’s provisions or a prior approved offering, no new registration is required under Wisconsin law.

Wisconsin Statute 135.025(2)(a) outlines the requirements for a franchise agreement to be subject to the Wisconsin Franchise Investment Law. This statute specifies that a franchise exists if the franchisee is required to make a payment of at least $500 to the franchisor or an affiliate of the franchisor for the right to do business. This initial payment is a crucial element in determining whether the Wisconsin Franchise Investment Law applies, irrespective of other factors like the existence of a community of interest or the provision of a marketing plan. The law aims to protect individuals entering into franchise relationships by ensuring adequate disclosure and preventing deceptive practices. The threshold of $500 is a bright-line test established by the legislature to define the scope of the statute. Therefore, if the initial payment for the right to engage in the business under the franchisor’s system is less than $500, the transaction would not be considered a franchise under Wisconsin law, even if other elements of a franchise relationship are present. This threshold is a fundamental aspect of franchise registration and disclosure obligations in Wisconsin.

Under Wisconsin Franchise Investment Law, specifically Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 553, a franchisor is prohibited from offering or selling a franchise in this state unless the franchise is registered with the administrator or is exempt from registration. One common exemption is for a “large franchisee” exemption. This exemption typically applies when the franchisee, along with its affiliates, has been in continuous operation for at least five years, has a net worth of not less than \$5,000,000, and has acquired at least ten franchises from the franchisor or its affiliates. The question scenario involves a franchisee, “Brew & Bite,” which has been operating for six years and has a net worth of \$6,500,000. However, Brew & Bite has only acquired eight franchise units from the franchisor, “Culinary Creations LLC,” and its affiliates. Since the franchisee has not met the requirement of acquiring at least ten franchises, it does not qualify for the large franchisee exemption. Therefore, Culinary Creations LLC must register its franchise offering in Wisconsin. The correct answer is that registration is required.

Wisconsin Statute 135.02(12) defines a franchise as an agreement that meets three specific criteria: (1) it grants the franchisee the right to engage in the business of offering, selling, or distributing goods or services using the franchisor’s trademark, service mark, trade name, logotype, or commercial symbol; (2) it requires the franchisee to make a payment or continuing payments to the franchisor for the right to do business; and (3) it requires the franchisor to exercise significant control over or provide significant assistance to the franchisee in the operation of the franchised business. The scenario describes a software licensing agreement where “Pixel Perfect” grants “Creative Canvas” the right to use its proprietary design software and associated branding, which clearly satisfies the first criterion. Creative Canvas pays a monthly subscription fee for this license, fulfilling the second criterion. The critical element is the franchisor’s control or assistance. Pixel Perfect provides mandatory, regular software updates that alter core functionalities, dictates specific marketing materials and their deployment schedule, and requires adherence to detailed operational protocols for customer service interactions. This level of involvement in how Creative Canvas operates its business, beyond mere product quality control, constitutes significant control and assistance as contemplated by the statute. Therefore, this arrangement likely constitutes a franchise under Wisconsin law.

Wisconsin’s Franchise Investment Law, under Chapter 553 of the Wisconsin Statutes, governs the offer and sale of franchises within the state. A key aspect of this law pertains to the registration and disclosure requirements for franchisors. Specifically, Wisconsin Statute § 553.22 requires a franchisor to register a franchise offering with the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions (DFI) unless an exemption applies. The law mandates the disclosure of specific information to prospective franchisees through a Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD) prior to any franchise agreement being signed or any payment being made. The FDD is a standardized document that provides comprehensive details about the franchise system, including the franchisor’s business experience, fees, obligations, territory, trademarks, financial statements, and more. Failure to register or provide the required disclosures can lead to significant penalties, including rescission rights for the franchisee and potential civil liability for the franchisor. The purpose of these regulations is to protect potential franchisees from fraudulent or deceptive practices and to ensure they have sufficient information to make an informed investment decision. The law aims to foster fair and transparent franchise relationships.

The Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law, specifically Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 135, governs the relationship between grantors and dealers in this state. A key aspect of this law is the protection it affords dealers against unfair termination, cancellation, or substantial change of a dealership agreement. Section 135.03 of the Wisconsin Statutes outlines the conditions under which a grantor cannot terminate, cancel, or fail to renew a dealership agreement. It mandates that a grantor must provide at least 90 days’ written notice to the dealer, specifying all the reasons for the termination, cancellation, or failure to renew. Furthermore, the grantor must also provide the dealer with an opportunity to cure any alleged default or breach of the agreement within 60 days from the date of the notice. This cure period is a critical procedural safeguard. If the dealer cures the default within this timeframe, the grantor is then prohibited from proceeding with the termination or cancellation. The law aims to prevent arbitrary actions by grantors and ensures a fair process for dealers who have invested in establishing and promoting the grantor’s products or services. This requirement for notice and an opportunity to cure is a fundamental protection under Wisconsin’s franchise law framework.

The Wisconsin Franchise Investment Law, specifically Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 553, governs franchise offerings and sales within the state. A critical aspect of this law pertains to the exemptions available from registration and disclosure requirements. One such exemption, often referred to as the “large franchisee” or “experienced franchisee” exemption, is found in Wisconsin Statutes Section 553.23(1)(a). This provision exempts from registration and disclosure requirements any offer or sale of a franchise to an existing franchisee who has been operating a franchise under a written agreement with the franchisor for at least two years, and who purchases an additional franchise of the same type. The exemption is predicated on the franchisee’s demonstrated experience and understanding of the franchisor’s business model and the franchise system. The rationale behind this exemption is that such an experienced franchisee is presumed to possess sufficient knowledge and sophistication to evaluate the risks and merits of acquiring an additional franchise without the need for the protections afforded by state registration and disclosure. The two-year operating period is a key benchmark, ensuring a meaningful level of engagement and familiarity with the franchise system. The requirement for purchasing an “additional franchise of the same type” ensures that the exemption applies to an expansion within a known business model, rather than diversification into a new or different franchise concept. This exemption is a significant carve-out from the general registration mandate, allowing for streamlined expansion for established and knowledgeable franchisees.

Wisconsin Statute 135.03, often referred to as the “good cause” statute, mandates that a franchisor must have good cause to terminate, fail to renew, or substantially change the competitive circumstances of a franchise agreement. The statute defines good cause to include the franchisee’s failure to comply with the terms of the franchise agreement. However, the interpretation of “good cause” can be nuanced. Wisconsin courts have generally held that a franchisor must demonstrate a material breach of the agreement by the franchisee. Minor or technical breaches, or breaches that have been waived or condoned by the franchisor, may not constitute good cause for termination. Furthermore, the franchisor’s actions must be taken in good faith. The statute also specifies notice requirements for termination, typically requiring a franchisor to provide the franchisee with a written notice of intent to terminate at least 90 days prior to the effective date of termination, unless the grounds for termination are curable within that period. If the grounds are curable, the franchisee must be given a reasonable opportunity to cure the deficiency. The concept of “substantial change in competitive circumstances” also requires careful consideration, as it can include actions by the franchisor that significantly alter the franchisee’s ability to operate profitably, even without a direct breach by the franchisee. This can involve issues like market saturation due to the franchisor’s own expansion strategies or significant changes to the product or service offering that render the franchisee’s investment obsolete. The question tests the understanding of what constitutes legally sufficient grounds for a franchisor to take adverse action against a franchisee under Wisconsin law, focusing on the franchisor’s burden of proof and the franchisee’s rights.

Wisconsin Statute § 553.26(1) outlines the requirements for a franchisor to provide a franchise disclosure document to a prospective franchisee. This disclosure document must be provided at least 14 days before the franchisee signs the franchise agreement or pays any consideration. The purpose of this provision is to afford the prospective franchisee a reasonable period to review the extensive information contained within the disclosure document, which is typically in the Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD) format mandated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Rule, as incorporated by reference and supplemented by Wisconsin law. This review period is critical for informed decision-making, allowing the franchisee to understand the franchisor’s business model, financial obligations, operational requirements, and potential risks. Failure to provide the disclosure document within this statutory timeframe constitutes a violation of Wisconsin franchise law. The question tests the understanding of this specific timing requirement and the legal consequence of non-compliance.

Wisconsin Statute § 135.02(12) defines a franchise as an agreement where a franchisee is granted the right to engage in the business of offering, selling, or distributing goods or services under a marketing plan or system prescribed by the franchisor. Crucially, the franchisee must make a required payment of fees for the right to do so. The statute also requires that the business will be substantially associated with the franchisor’s trademark, service mark, trade name, or commercial symbol. In this scenario, the agreement between the Wisconsin-based catering company, “Savory Suppers,” and the out-of-state bakery, “Artisan Breads Inc.,” involves Artisan Breads Inc. providing a proprietary operational manual, marketing collateral featuring its brand, and requiring Savory Suppers to pay an initial licensing fee and ongoing royalty payments. The core of the arrangement is the right granted to Savory Suppers to operate a catering business substantially associated with the Artisan Breads Inc. brand and system, coupled with the required financial contribution. This aligns directly with the statutory definition of a franchise in Wisconsin, particularly the elements of a prescribed marketing plan, the use of a trademark, and the payment of fees. Therefore, the arrangement constitutes a franchise under Wisconsin law.

Wisconsin Franchise Law, specifically under Chapter 553 of the Wisconsin Statutes, requires franchisors to provide prospective franchisees with a Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD) at least 14 days before the franchisee signs any agreement or pays any fees. The FDD contains crucial information about the franchise system, including financial statements, litigation history, and operational details. This disclosure requirement is a cornerstone of consumer protection in franchise sales, aiming to ensure that potential franchisees can make informed decisions. Failure to comply with this pre-sale disclosure mandate can lead to significant legal consequences for the franchisor, including rescission rights for the franchisee and potential liability for damages. The 14-day period is a minimum; a franchisor may provide the FDD earlier. The law focuses on the *receipt* of the document by the prospective franchisee, not merely its mailing or offering. Therefore, the critical timeframe is the period between the franchisee’s actual receipt of the FDD and the earliest date they can sign the franchise agreement or pay any initial franchise fee.

The Wisconsin Franchise Investment Law, codified in Chapter 553 of the Wisconsin Statutes, requires franchisors to register their franchise offerings with the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions (DFI) unless an exemption applies. Section 553.23 of the Wisconsin Statutes outlines various exemptions. One such exemption, found in Section 553.23(1)(a), pertains to franchisors who have no place of business in Wisconsin and who sell only through licensed salespersons. However, this exemption is subject to certain conditions. Crucially, the Wisconsin law, like the federal FTC Franchise Rule, also provides an exemption for existing franchisees who are acquiring an additional franchise of the same or substantially similar line of business from the same franchisor. This exemption is typically found in administrative rules or specific statutory provisions that mirror federal approaches to avoid undue burdens on established franchise systems. The key element for this exemption is the prior relationship and the acquisition of a similar business. Therefore, a franchisor operating solely in Illinois and selling a franchise in Wisconsin to a franchisee who already owns and operates a similar franchise from the same franchisor in Minnesota would be exempt from Wisconsin’s registration requirements under this provision, as the franchisor has no place of business in Wisconsin, and the transaction involves an existing franchisee acquiring a similar business.

Wisconsin’s Franchise Investment Law, under Chapter 553 of the Wisconsin Statutes, mandates specific disclosure requirements for franchisors offering franchises in the state. A franchisor must provide prospective franchisees with a Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD) at least 14 days prior to the franchisee signing any agreement or paying any fees. The FDD is a comprehensive document containing crucial information about the franchise system, including financial statements, fees, obligations, and the franchisor’s experience. Failure to provide the FDD within the stipulated timeframe or providing misleading information can lead to significant penalties, including rescission rights for the franchisee and potential legal action. The law aims to protect individuals from fraudulent or deceptive franchise offerings by ensuring transparency and providing adequate information for informed decision-making. This disclosure requirement is a cornerstone of franchise regulation, ensuring a level playing field and fostering fair competition within the franchise industry in Wisconsin. The 14-day period is a critical safeguard designed to allow sufficient time for review and consultation.

Wisconsin’s Franchise Investment Law, specifically Wis. Stat. § 553.21, outlines the exemptions from registration requirements. One such exemption pertains to the offer or sale of a franchise to an existing franchisee. The law specifies that an offer or sale is exempt if it is made to a person who has had a prior franchise relationship with the franchisor and has been operating under that prior franchise agreement for at least one year. This exemption is designed to facilitate the expansion of established franchisee relationships without the burden of full registration, recognizing that such individuals possess a degree of familiarity with the franchisor’s system and operations. The critical element is the duration of the prior franchise operation, which must be at least one year. Therefore, if a franchisor in Wisconsin offers a new franchise to an individual who previously operated a franchise from the same franchisor for 18 months, that offer is exempt from registration under this provision.

Wisconsin franchise law, specifically Chapter 135 of the Wisconsin Statutes, governs franchise relationships within the state. A key aspect of this law is the protection afforded to franchisees, particularly concerning termination, cancellation, or non-renewal of a franchise agreement. Section 135.04 of the Wisconsin Statutes outlines the notice requirements for termination, cancellation, or non-renewal. Generally, a franchisor must provide at least 90 days’ written notice to the franchisee. However, there are specific circumstances where a shorter notice period or even immediate termination may be permissible. These exceptions often relate to the franchisee’s failure to cure a material breach of the franchise agreement after receiving notice and a reasonable opportunity to do so, or in cases of abandonment of the franchise, or if the franchisee is adjudicated bankrupt or insolvent. The law aims to balance the franchisor’s need to maintain brand standards and business efficacy with the franchisee’s reliance on the business. The concept of “good cause” for termination is central, and while the statute provides for notice periods, the underlying justification for termination must align with the statutory definitions of good cause, which include the franchisee’s failure to comply with reasonable and essential requirements of the franchise agreement. The statutory framework emphasizes a procedural fairness, requiring adequate notice and an opportunity to cure, unless the breach is so fundamental or the situation so exigent that such steps are impractical or would cause irreparable harm to the franchisor.

Wisconsin Statute 135.025 governs the interpretation and application of franchise law in the state. This statute emphasizes the importance of good faith and fair dealing in franchise relationships. Specifically, it mandates that all parties to a franchise agreement are subject to an obligation of good faith and fair dealing in the performance and enforcement of the contract. This principle is not merely a guideline but a fundamental aspect of franchise agreements under Wisconsin law. It means that even if a contract provision appears to grant broad discretion to one party, that discretion must be exercised reasonably and without intent to harm or exploit the other party. The concept of good faith extends to all aspects of the franchise relationship, including renewals, terminations, and operational requirements. When a franchisor imposes new operational standards or modifies existing ones, the imposition of these changes must be done in good faith, considering the impact on the franchisee’s ability to operate profitably and without arbitrary or capricious decisions. The statute does not define specific numerical thresholds for good faith but rather relies on common law principles and judicial interpretation to assess whether actions meet this standard. The overarching goal is to ensure a balanced and equitable franchise relationship, preventing undue hardship or opportunistic behavior.

Wisconsin’s Franchise Investment Law, specifically Chapter 553 of the Wisconsin Statutes, governs franchise offerings and sales within the state. A critical aspect of this law pertains to the exemptions from registration requirements. While many franchise offerings must be registered with the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions (WFI) unless an exemption applies, certain transactions are automatically excluded from the definition of a franchise or are otherwise exempt. For instance, Wisconsin Statute § 553.23 outlines several exemptions. One such exemption relates to offers and sales to certain sophisticated purchasers. Specifically, an offer or sale of a franchise by a franchisee to a franchisee for the franchisee’s own account is exempt from registration, provided that the sale is not part of an effort to induce a purchase of a franchise from the franchisor. This “resale exemption” is designed to facilitate secondary market transactions between existing franchisees without imposing the burden of full registration, assuming the transaction is a genuine resale and not a disguised primary offering. The key is that the seller is a franchisee selling to another franchisee for their own investment, and the sale is not orchestrated by the franchisor to introduce new franchisees into the system.

Wisconsin Statute 135.03, the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law (WFDL), governs the relationship between suppliers and dealers. A “dealer” is defined broadly to include any person who is a grantee of a franchise, or a sub-franchisee, who during the previous 12 months has engaged in the business of selling or leasing goods or services in Wisconsin. The WFDL applies to franchises where the dealer is located in Wisconsin or has its principal place of business in Wisconsin, and the grantor has its principal place of business in Wisconsin, or is a resident of Wisconsin. The law is designed to protect dealers from unfair termination, cancellation, or substantial alteration of a franchise agreement. A key aspect is the requirement for good cause for termination, non-renewal, or cancellation. Good cause is generally understood to mean a dealer’s failure to comply with the terms of the franchise agreement, provided the grantor has given the dealer reasonable written notice of the alleged deficiency and a reasonable opportunity to cure it, unless the deficiency is curable. Non-curable deficiencies, such as bankruptcy or insolvency, can also constitute good cause. The WFDL also provides for remedies for dealers who are wrongfully terminated, including damages and injunctive relief. The law’s protective scope extends to a wide array of industries, not just traditional retail, encompassing service providers and even some business-to-business relationships if they meet the franchise definition. The intent is to prevent suppliers from exploiting their economic power over dealers and to foster fair competition within the state.

The Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law, Wis. Stat. § 135.01 et seq., governs the relationship between grantors and dealers in Wisconsin. A key aspect of this law is the protection it affords dealers against unfair termination, cancellation, or substantial alteration of a dealership agreement. The law defines a “dealer” broadly to include any person who agrees to offer, sell, or distribute goods or services of the grantor, and a “grantor” as any person who grants a dealership. The statute requires good cause for termination or substantial alteration, and defines good cause to include the dealer’s failure to comply with essential and reasonable requirements of the dealership agreement. However, the law also outlines specific notice requirements and opportunities for the dealer to cure any alleged deficiencies. Wis. Stat. § 135.04 mandates that a grantor must provide 90 days’ written notice of termination or substantial alteration, along with the specific reasons for the action. Crucially, the dealer must be given 60 days to rectify the situation if the grounds for termination are curable. If the grantor fails to provide the requisite notice and opportunity to cure, or if the reasons for termination are not supported by good cause as defined and interpreted under Wisconsin law, the dealer may have a cause of action for wrongful termination or substantial alteration. This protection is a cornerstone of the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law, ensuring a level of fairness in the grantor-dealer relationship within the state.

The Wisconsin Franchise Investment Law, specifically Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 553, outlines requirements for franchise registration and disclosure. A critical aspect is understanding when a franchise relationship is presumed to exist. Wisconsin Statute § 553.03(5) defines a franchise broadly, but also provides exclusions. One significant exclusion, often tested, relates to situations where the franchisee’s investment is minimal or where there is no required territorial exclusivity. Another key element is the concept of “community of interest,” where the franchisor’s business success is substantially dependent on the success of franchisees. When a business arrangement involves a common brand, a common business plan, and the payment of a franchise fee, a franchise is generally presumed unless an exclusion applies. In this scenario, the arrangement involves a shared brand (“Artisan Brews”), a standardized operational manual (the “Brewmaster’s Guide”), and a significant initial fee ($50,000). The franchisor’s ongoing revenue is directly tied to the sales of the franchisees, establishing a clear community of interest. Furthermore, the agreement grants exclusive rights to operate within a defined geographic territory, removing a common exclusion. Therefore, the elements strongly indicate a franchise under Wisconsin law.

Wisconsin Statute 135.02(12) defines a franchise as an agreement that meets three specific criteria. First, it must grant the franchisee the right to engage in the business of offering, selling, or distributing goods or services. Second, it requires the franchisee to pay a franchise fee. Third, it mandates that the franchisee’s business be substantially associated with the franchisor’s trademark, service mark, or commercial symbol. If any one of these three elements is absent, the arrangement is not considered a franchise under Wisconsin law. The question posits a scenario where a software developer licenses its proprietary code to a local business, allowing the business to offer specialized data analytics services. The developer receives a royalty based on the revenue generated by these services, and the business uses the developer’s brand name prominently in its marketing. However, the core of the business is the service delivery, not the resale of physical goods or a pre-packaged business system in the traditional sense, and the royalty is tied to service revenue, not an upfront or ongoing fee for the license to operate a distinct business model under the developer’s brand. Crucially, the license grants the right to *use* the code to provide a service, but does not typically involve the sale of goods or a comprehensive system of operations and marketing support that characterizes a franchise. The absence of a direct franchise fee as defined by the statute, and the nature of the license as primarily for software usage rather than a complete business system, means the arrangement does not satisfy all three prongs for a franchise.

Wisconsin franchise law, specifically Chapter 135 of the Wisconsin Statutes, outlines the rights and obligations of franchisors and franchisees. A key aspect of this law concerns the grounds for termination, cancellation, or non-renewal of a franchise agreement. Section 135.03 of the Wisconsin Statutes specifies that a franchisor may not terminate, cancel, or fail to renew a franchise unless there is good cause. “Good cause” is defined in Section 135.02(4) as the franchisee’s failure to comply with essential and reasonable requirements of the franchise agreement. However, the law also provides a list of specific actions that constitute “good cause” for termination, including the franchisee’s failure to open the business at the appointed time, failure to maintain adequate inventory, or engaging in deceptive practices. Crucially, the statute also requires that before a franchisor can terminate for a curable breach, the franchisor must provide the franchisee with written notice of the breach and a reasonable period, typically 60 days, to cure the deficiency. If the breach is not cured within this period, termination may proceed. Non-curable breaches, such as bankruptcy or abandonment of the business, may allow for immediate termination without a cure period. The statute aims to protect franchisees from arbitrary termination by franchisors, ensuring a degree of stability and fairness in the franchise relationship within Wisconsin.

Wisconsin Statute § 135.03, the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law (WFDL), prohibits a grantor from terminating, canceling, or failing to renew a dealership agreement except for cause. “Cause” is defined under the WFDL as, among other things, the grantor’s good faith belief that the dealer has failed to comply with the dealership agreement. This good faith belief must be based on reasonable grounds and a reasonable investigation. In the context of a dealership agreement governed by Wisconsin law, if a grantor terminates a dealership based on a perceived breach of the agreement, the grantor must provide the dealer with written notice of termination at least 90 days in advance, and the dealer must be given an opportunity to cure the alleged deficiency within 60 days of receiving the notice. If the deficiency is cured within the specified period, the termination is ineffective. The WFDL also allows for immediate termination without notice or cure period if the dealer abandons the dealership, becomes insolvent, or is adjudicated bankrupt. However, for performance-related issues, the notice and cure provisions are mandatory. Therefore, a grantor cannot simply terminate a dealership agreement due to a single instance of a minor pricing error by the dealer, especially if the dealer promptly corrects the error and demonstrates a commitment to adherence. The WFDL emphasizes fairness and provides dealers with significant protections against arbitrary terminations. The burden of proof is on the grantor to demonstrate that cause existed for the termination and that the statutory notice and cure provisions were followed.

The Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law, specifically Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 135, governs the relationship between grantors and dealers. A crucial aspect of this law is the protection it affords to dealers against arbitrary termination, cancellation, or substantial alteration of a dealership agreement. When a grantor intends to terminate, cancel, or refuse to renew a dealership, Wisconsin law mandates a specific notice period and a good cause requirement. The law defines “good cause” as performance by the dealer that is inconsistent with the nature of the grantor’s business or that materially breaches the dealership agreement. Importantly, the law also outlines specific circumstances that constitute good cause, such as a dealer’s failure to comply with reasonable requirements of the grantor, provided the grantor has given the dealer reasonable time to cure the deficiency. However, the law also specifies that if the grantor has a substantial reason for termination that is not related to the dealer’s performance, such as a significant change in the grantor’s business strategy or economic conditions, it can still be considered good cause if certain conditions are met. Specifically, if the grantor is discontinuing a product line or discontinuing the sale of its products in the state or region, and provides the dealer with advance notice and fair compensation for the loss of the dealership, this can be permissible. The statutory notice period for termination or cancellation is generally 90 days, unless a longer period is specified in the agreement. For substantial alteration of the competitive circumstances of the dealership, the notice period is typically 60 days. The question revolves around the grantor’s ability to make a substantial change to the dealership’s competitive circumstances. Under Wisconsin Statutes Section 135.04, a grantor must provide at least 60 days’ written notice of any substantial change in the competitive circumstances of a dealership. This notice must specify all the terms and conditions of the proposed change. Therefore, a grantor wishing to significantly alter the territory or product offerings of a dealership must adhere to this 60-day notice requirement.

The Wisconsin Franchise Investment Law, specifically Wis. Stat. § 553.26, outlines the conditions under which a franchisor must provide a prospective franchisee with a franchise disclosure document. This disclosure document is crucial for enabling informed decision-making by the franchisee. The law mandates that this document be provided at least 14 days prior to the signing of any franchise agreement or the payment of any consideration by the franchisee. This period allows the prospective franchisee sufficient time to review the extensive information contained within the disclosure document, which typically includes details about the franchisor’s financial condition, the franchisee’s obligations, fees, territory, and dispute resolution mechanisms. Failure to provide the disclosure document within this specified timeframe, or providing it with material omissions or misrepresentations, can lead to significant legal consequences for the franchisor, including rescission rights for the franchisee and potential liability for damages. The 14-day period is a fundamental protection mechanism designed to foster transparency and fairness in franchise relationships within Wisconsin.