Wisconsin Business Law Blog : Waukesha, New Berlin, Oconomowoc Corporate & Real Estate Lawyer & Attorney

One of several provisions of Wisconsin's 2009 Budget Bill unfavorable to business has been amended in the Senate's version of that Bill.

The Bill had provided that owners of property zoned for commercial, industrial or residential purposes would no longer qualify as agricultural property, and therefore no longer be entitled to favorable "use value" assessment for property tax purposes.  Owners of such property which remained undeveloped would lease it to farmers for production of crops until it could be sold for commercial or industrial purposes.  While in use for agricultural purposes, Wisconsin law allowed the owners of such property to take advantage of favorable tax treatment based on its agricultural use.  The Assembly version of the Bill had provided that such land would not be deemed "agricultural property" even if used for agricultural purposes.

The Senate amendment would allow owners of such land to continue to qualify for favorable property tax treatment while waiting to sell or develop their property.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The court battle between IBM and Dell over the employment of former IBM M&A chief David Johnson provides even more evidence that Noncompete Agreements are highly unique contracts that often lead to some highly unique arguments in litgation. It appears Mr. Johnson is arguing that because he “intentionally” signed the noncompete on the wrong line, it is not valid.  In other types of transactions (and maybe this one too) this type of admission would most likely lead to a misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement, or similar common law claim that could open up a party to significant liability.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In today’s economic world, marketing is more important than ever. The people who are bringing in business are the ones who are out there courting it. That’s why I am happy to share with you a special opportunity. For the next 48 hours only, my colleague Paula Black is offering a collection of FREE bonus gifts to anyone who purchases her latest book: "The Little Black Book: A Lawyer’s Guide To Creating A Marketing Habit in 21 Days." Designed to help lawyers integrate marketing into their daily lives, this book is quick, easy and inspirational. And by purchasing it within the next 48 hours you will receive special access to information and resources from more than 30 experts. A compilation of advice from some of the most sought-after experts in the legal arena, "The Smart Lawyer’s Toolkit" gives you instant admittance to an incredible collection of tips and information. Click here for details…but do it fast!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The current dispute involving the University of Kentucky and its former men's basketball coach, Billy Gillispie, is an example of a not so uncommon problem with informal agreements. In general, “agreements to agree” (aka “letters of intent” or “agreements in principle) are not binding contracts under Wisconsin law. Instead, they are tools used to clarify significant points of a transaction in order to more easily draft the “final” documents. Unfortunately, the “final” documents are not always drafted and signed. As in the Gillispie situation, this often leads to one side of the transaction arguing that the letter of intent was actually a binding contract. A good practice is to make it absolutely clear in any letter of intent that it is not binding and then, of course, to formalize any agreement in a definitive document or clearly terminate the letter of intent with some type of writing.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Buried deep within Wisconsin's massive 2009 Biennial Budget Bill, Assembly Bill 75, are proposed changes to the contributory negligence law which could create extensive liability for businesses which are only minimally involved in causing injury to a plaintiff.

Currently, the law provides that a plaintiff may recover from a defendant all of his damages only if the defendant is found to be more than 51% negligent.  Such a defendant is jointly and severally liable for the plaintiff's injuries.  Assembly Bill 75, however, would change the law so that a defendant would be jointly and severally liable for all injuries, and therefore all damages, if the defendant is found to have been as negligent or more negligent than the plaintiff.

The implications are obvious and potentially devastating.  If an employee of a business participates in causing injury, and it is determined that his negligence represents, for example,  only 5% of total causal negligence, his employer could be liable for all damages sustained by the plaintiff if it is determined that the plaintiff was 5% negligent or less than 5% negligent.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks