Title: Central Corporation v. Research Products Corporation
Citation: 2004 WI 76
Docket Number: 2002AP001974
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: June 15, 2004

2004 WI 76 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
02-1974 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
Central Corporation,  
          Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner, 
 
     v. 
 
Research Products Corporation,  
          Defendant-Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
Reported at: 266 Wis. 2d 1060, 668 N.W.2d 562 
(Ct. App. 2003-Unpublished) 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 15, 2004   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
April 1, 2004   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Winnebago   
 
JUDGE: 
William H. Carver   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: WILCOX and SYKES, J.J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the plaintiff-appellant-petitioner there were briefs by 
Daniel W. Hildebrand and DeWitt Ross & Stevens, S.C., Madison, 
and John M. Kelly and Dempsey, Williamson, Young, Kelly & 
Hertel, L.L.P., Oshkosh, and oral argument by Daniel W. 
Hildebrand. 
 
For the defendant-respondent there was a brief by Michael 
J. Lawton, Kenneth B. Axe and Lathrop & Clark, LLP, Madison, and 
oral argument by Kenneth B. Axe. 
 
 
2004 WI 76 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  02-1974  
(L.C. No. 
01 CV 815) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Central Corporation,  
 
          Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner, 
 
     v. 
 
Research Products Corporation,  
 
          Defendant-Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 15, 2004 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Reversed and 
cause remanded.   
 
¶1 
N. PATRICK CROOKS, J.   Petitioner Central Corporation 
(Central) seeks review of the court of appeals' decision, 
Central 
Corp. 
v. 
Research 
Products 
Corp., 
No. 
02-1974, 
unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. July 28, 2003), affirming 
the circuit court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor 
of 
Research 
Products 
Corporation 
(Research) 
and 
dismiss 
Central's complaint alleging a violation under the Wisconsin 
Fair 
Dealership 
Law 
(WFDL). 
 
The 
circuit 
court 
granted 
Research's motion for summary judgment, stating that Central was 
No. 
02-1974   
 
2 
 
not a dealer of Research's products under the WFDL.  Central 
appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed. 
¶2 
We conclude that summary judgment was improperly 
granted to Research.  Genuine issues of material fact exist 
here, as well as reasonable alternative inferences drawn from 
undisputed material facts, so that a trial is warranted in this 
case to determine whether there is a community of interest, and, 
therefore, a dealership relationship.  Several facets of 
Central's relationship with Research lead to the conclusion 
that, under the WFDL, summary judgment should not have been 
granted.  Those factors, and the alternative inferences that may 
be drawn from them, include: the parties' 20-year business 
relationship; Central's owners' significant financial investment 
in the construction of a warehouse based, in part, on the amount 
of Research's products it housed; Central's practice of keeping 
a substantial amount of Research's product in inventory; 
Research's desire to limit Central's sales to a specific 
territory; and Central's practice of keeping spare parts for 
Research's products on hand for sale, at cost, to its customers.  
Where there are genuine issues of material fact or reasonable 
alternative inferences drawn from undisputed material facts, the 
determination of whether there is a community of interest is one 
which will be made by the trier of fact based on an examination 
of all of the facets of the business relationship.  
I 
 
¶3 
On June 27, 2001, Research wrote a letter to Central 
stating that it would stop selling its products to Central 
No. 
02-1974   
 
3 
 
effective in 60 days. Central filed the complaint in this case 
at the end of that 60-day period.  In its complaint, Central 
stated that there was a community of interest, as contemplated 
in Wis. Stat. § 135.02(3)(a) (2001-02),1 between itself and 
Research "because there is a continuing financial interest 
between the parties in the sale and distribution of these goods 
and the parties are dependent upon each other for the sales and 
distribution of the goods."  Central alleged that Research's 
decision 
to 
terminate 
the 
parties' 
relationship 
violated 
Wis. Stat. § 135.032 since there was no good cause to terminate 
the dealership arrangement.  Moreover, Central alleged that 
Research 
failed 
to 
provide 
Central 
with 
notice 
and 
the 
                                                 
1 Unless otherwise indicated, all references to Wisconsin 
Statutes 
are 
to 
the 
2001-02 
edition.  
Wisconsin Stat. § 135.02(3)(a) states, in relevant part, as 
follows: 
A contract or agreement, either expressed or implied, 
whether oral or written, between 2 or more persons, by 
which a person is granted the right to sell or 
distribute goods or services, or use a trade name, 
trademark, service mark, logotype, advertising or 
other commercial symbol, in which there is a community 
of interest in the business of offering, selling or 
distributing goods or services at wholesale, retail, 
by lease, agreement or otherwise. 
   
2 Wisconsin Stat. § 135.03 states, in relevant part, as 
follows:  "No grantor, directly or through any officer, agent or 
employee, may terminate, cancel, fail to renew or substantially 
change the competitive circumstances of a dealership agreement 
without good cause.  The burden of proving good cause is on the 
grantor." 
No. 
02-1974   
 
4 
 
opportunity 
to 
cure 
in 
violation 
of 
Wis. Stat. § 135.04.3  
Central also petitioned for a temporary restraining order to 
prevent termination of the business relationship.  The circuit 
court entered the temporary restraining order on August 27, 
2001.  The circuit court then granted a temporary injunction 
that prevented Research from terminating the relationship until 
March 15, 2002.  The parties later stipulated that the 
injunction would remain in effect until the court decided 
Research's anticipated motion for summary judgment.  Research 
filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that Central was 
not a dealer under the WFDL because there was no community of 
interest between the parties. 
 
¶4 
The Winnebago County Circuit Court, Judge William H. 
Carver 
presiding, 
granted 
Research's 
motion 
for 
summary 
judgment.  The circuit court found that Central was not a dealer 
under the WFDL.  The court cited the following factors as 
relevant to its decision:  (1) The parties had no written 
agreement; (2) Central would not be substantially harmed by the 
termination because it could sell comparable products; (3) 
                                                 
3 Wisconsin Stat. § 135.04 states, in relevant part, as 
follows: 
Except as provided in this section, a grantor shall 
provide a dealer at least 90 days' prior written 
notice of termination, cancellation, nonrenewal or 
substantial change in competitive circumstances.  The 
notice shall state all the reasons for termination, 
cancellation, nonrenewal or substantial change in 
competitive circumstances and shall provide that the 
dealer has 60 days in which to rectify any claimed 
deficiency. 
No. 
02-1974   
 
5 
 
Central's sale of Research's products at eight percent of its 
gross revenue was not enough, given relevant case law, to 
suggest the existence of a dealership; (4) Research did not 
require any specific activity of Central; and (5) Research did 
not require Central to make any specific investments or provide 
specific promotions or services.  Central appealed the circuit 
court's judgment, and the parties stipulated that the injunction 
would remain in effect pending appeal. 
 
¶5 
In an unpublished per curiam opinion, Court of Appeals 
Judges Neal P. Nettesheim, Richard S. Brown, and Daniel P. 
Anderson affirmed the circuit court's judgment, stating that no 
reasonable person could conclude that Central had demonstrated 
that it and Research had a community of interest.  The court 
concluded 
that 
the 
parties 
had 
a 
typical 
vendor-vendee 
relationship and that there were "no disputed material facts 
demonstrating 
a 
continuing 
financial 
interest 
and 
interdependence as required by the WFDL."  Central Corp., No. 
02-1974, unpublished slip op., ¶7.  The court noted the 
following factors as persuasive:  (1) Research did not impose 
any requirements on Central; (2) Research does its own marketing 
and does not expect Central to advertise on its behalf; (3) 
Central did not make any investments that were unique to 
Research's products; (4) Central derives a low percentage, only 
eight percent, of its gross revenues from the sale of Research's 
products; (5) Termination of the parties' relationship will not 
have a significantly adverse effect on Central's financial well-
being; 
and 
(6) 
The 
inventory 
in 
this 
case 
is 
not 
an 
No. 
02-1974   
 
6 
 
unrecoverable investment.  The court concluded that the parties 
were not interdependent, as required by the WFDL, and Central 
did not have a continuing financial interest with Research.  
Central appealed. 
¶6 
Central alleges the following:  Central is an Oshkosh, 
Wisconsin based business that sells humidifiers, air cleaners, 
and zoning systems to installer contractors.  Research is based 
in Madison, Wisconsin and manufactures heating, ventilating, and 
air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, including Aprilaire brand 
products such as humidifiers, air cleaners, zone controls, and 
thermostats.  Research does not have its own sales force or 
related sales equipment.  As a result, it sells its products to 
wholesalers and depends on them to sell and distribute its 
products. 
 
Wholesalers 
then 
sell 
Research's 
products 
to 
installer contractors, who ultimately sell the products to 
homeowners and commercial builders.  Research ships its products 
to approximately eight wholesalers in Wisconsin, including 
Central.   
 
¶7 
Although Central and Research do not have a written 
contract regarding the terms of their agreement, the parties 
have a 20-year business relationship based on their oral 
agreement to allow Central to distribute Research's Aprilaire 
products.  Central sells Research's Aprilaire brand humidifiers, 
air cleaners, water panels, and zoning systems.  Central was one 
of Research's leading Wisconsin wholesalers based on dollar 
volume of products sold.  Central distributed Research's 
products throughout northeastern Wisconsin, primarily in the Fox 
No. 
02-1974   
 
7 
 
River Valley area, and, approximately ten years ago, expanded 
its territory to include Milwaukee and Madison.  Central visits 
approximately 100 installer contractors weekly to sell all of 
Central's HVAC lines, including Aprilaire. 
 
¶8 
 Central provides Aprilaire literature and information 
to its contractor customers, who then pass along the information 
to consumers.  On occasion, Research's employees will make sales 
calls with Central's employees in order to promote the Aprilaire 
product line.  Central promoted the Aprilaire product line 
during its visits with installer contractors.    The contractors 
contacted Central, not Research, with various product related 
questions, and Central provided service to these contractors.   
 
¶9 
With 
the 
exception 
of 
a 
thermometer 
recently 
introduced by Research, Central carries no brands that directly 
compete with Research's products.  Central maintains that the 
Aprilaire line is an important part of its business because the 
sale of such products significantly contributes to Central's 
profits.  In 2001, Central's total sales were $5,737,000.  
Central's gross sales of Research's products were $427,000, with 
gross profits of $53,807.  Sale of Aprilaire products has 
comprised approximately eight to nine percent of Central's sales 
and profits over the years. 
 
¶10 Central states that, if it did not carry the Aprilaire 
line, it would lose business because its customers would buy 
from a wholesaler that stocked all of the brands they required 
No. 
02-1974   
 
8 
 
instead of buying only a few items from multiple wholesalers.4  
It would take years for Central to replace the business and 
sales that the Aprilaire products bring to it. 
 
¶11 Central claims that it has educated its contractor 
customers regarding Aprilaire products and helped to develop 
goodwill and brand loyalty for the product line.  Central has 
marketed the Aprilaire line to its customers with the following 
slogans: 
 
"'. . . There's 
Only 
One 
Name 
For 
Indoor 
Air 
Comfort;'" "'One Powerful Brand Name For Five Great Comfort 
Products;'" "'The Strength Of The Aprilaire Brand Is A Fresh 
Source of Profits;'" and "'Now The Strength Of The Aprilaire 
Brand Turns Pollen And Dust Into Gold.'" 
 
¶12 Although 
Research 
does not 
require 
that Central 
maintain a fixed amount of inventory, Central must maintain a 
substantial number of Aprilaire products and parts to function 
successfully.  In January 2002, Central's inventory of Aprilaire 
products was valued at approximately $44,207.  In May 2002, such 
inventory was valued at approximately $50,000-$55,000.  Research 
also provides incentives for wholesalers to keep inventory high, 
such as having a sufficient amount of inventory to coincide with 
promotions.  Moreover, Research offers discounts on large orders 
and does not charge freight for orders in excess of $35,000.  In 
                                                 
4 In the court of appeals' decision in Guderjohn v. Loewen-
America, Inc., 179 Wis. 2d 201, 213, 507 N.W.2d 115 (Ct. App. 
1993), the court noted that "[t]he loss of one vendor's line may 
similarly affect a vendee's sales of other lines, but that 
interconnected loss does not necessarily create a dealership 
under the WFDL."  (Citation omitted). 
No. 
02-1974   
 
9 
 
practice, 
Central 
has substantial 
inventory 
of 
Research's 
products that has climbed as high as $60,000-$70,000. 
 
¶13   Central replaces defective parts that are covered 
under Research's warranties and keeps approximately $5000 of 
spare parts inventory on hand to do so.  Although Research 
reimburses Central for the price of the part, Central does not 
make a profit on replacement parts.  In addition, Central must 
absorb the overhead costs of warranty work such as delivery, 
handling, and paperwork associated with the replacement parts. 
 
¶14 Central's owners built a new warehouse to store 
Central's inventory of products.5  The size of the new warehouse 
was based on the space necessary for Central to house its 
inventory, including the Aprilaire line.  Central leased 7000 
square feet of warehouse space, and it claims that approximately 
2000 square feet of such warehouse space was intended to store 
Aprilaire product inventory. 
 
¶15 Central 
arranges 
for 
cooperative 
advertising 
of 
Aprilaire products approximately twice yearly.  Both Research's 
and Central's customers participate in covering the cost of this 
advertising.  Central invites its installer contractor customers 
to participate in such advertising and to share the cost 
thereof.  As an example, Central's customers that contribute the 
cost 
of 
running 
an 
Aprilaire 
television 
commercial 
are 
                                                 
5 John Guerts and James Trunk are the owners of Central, 
each 
being 
a 
50 
percent 
shareholder. 
 
Central's 
owners 
constructed the warehouse in 1992 and lease 7000 square feet of 
such warehouse space to Central. 
No. 
02-1974   
 
10 
 
identified, at the end of the commercial, as  businesses that 
sell Aprilaire products. 
 
¶16 Research closely monitors the performance of its 
wholesalers by conducting evaluations every 12 to 18 months.  
Research has never complained that Central failed to pay for, 
distribute, provide necessary parts for, or arrange for the 
promotion of the Aprilaire line.  Research has registered two 
complaints to Central.  First, Research complained that Central 
was not charging enough for products in the Aprilaire line, and 
should be more concerned with profitability.  Second, Research 
told Central that it should stop selling its products in the 
Madison and Milwaukee areas.  Central refused to stop selling in 
the areas, because such areas comprise 30 percent of its total 
business.6 
II 
 
¶17 We now consider whether there is a community of 
interest 
between 
Research 
and 
Central 
as 
set 
forth 
in 
Wis. Stat. § 135.02(3)(a).  Procedurally, this case turns on 
whether the circuit court properly granted summary judgment in 
favor of Research.  Wisconsin Stat. § 802.08 sets forth when a 
circuit 
court 
may 
appropriately 
grant 
summary 
judgment.  
According to sec. 802.08(2), summary judgment will be granted 
"if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and 
                                                 
6 In its brief to this court, Research alleges that Central 
agreed to stop selling in the Madison and Milwaukee areas but 
continued to do so.  This request may be interpreted as another 
obligation Research attempted to impose on Central. 
No. 
02-1974   
 
11 
 
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show 
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that 
the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." 
 
¶18 Although we review a grant of summary judgment 
independently, we use the same methodology as the circuit court.  
Thus, 
we 
will 
apply 
the 
criteria 
set 
forth 
in 
Wis. Stat. § 802.08(2).  Strasser v. Transtech Mobile Fleet 
Serv., 2000 WI 87, ¶30, 236 Wis. 2d 435, 613 N.W.2d 142.  Our 
first step is to determine if the pleadings set forth a claim 
for relief.  Trinity Evangelical v. Tower Ins. Co., 2003 WI 46, 
¶32, 261 Wis. 2d 333, 661 N.W.2d 789.  If such claim is set 
forth, and the moving party has established a prima facie case 
for summary judgment, "we examine the record to determine 
whether there 'exist[s] disputed material facts, or undisputed 
material facts from which reasonable alternative inferences may 
be drawn, sufficient to entitle the opposing party to a trial.'"  
Id. (quoting Grams v. Boss, 97 Wis. 2d 332, 338, 294 N.W.2d 473 
(1980)). 
¶19 The burden is on the moving party to prove that there 
are no genuine issues of material fact.  Strasser, 236 
Wis. 2d 435, ¶31.  An issue of fact is genuine if a reasonable 
jury could find for the nonmoving party.  Id., ¶32.  A material 
fact is such fact that would influence the outcome of the 
controversy.  Id. 
 
¶20  The benefits and burdens of summary judgment are 
aptly described in the following passage: 
No. 
02-1974   
 
12 
 
Summary judgment is a drastic remedy because it 
deprives the losing party of a trial or even an 
evidentiary hearing.  Still, the law recognizes the 
cost and inconvenience of litigation, and it requires 
a party to plead and support its claims or defenses in 
a timely manner to avoid wasting resources.  When a 
court is faced with a controversy in which no material 
facts are in dispute and a party's position cannot 
prevail as a matter of law, it has no obligation to 
delay judgment and thereby consume additional court 
time. 
Id., ¶29. 
 
¶21 Central argues that the WFDL was enacted by the 
legislature in order to protect small business owners against 
the pressures of dealing with larger companies.  The WFDL must 
be liberally construed, Central contends, in order to give 
effect to the intended purpose of the legislation.  Central 
asserts that there is a community of interest between Central 
and Research because there is both a continuing financial 
interest and interdependence between the parties.  Central 
asserts that both it and Research have a continuing financial 
interest in the successful marketing and sale of Aprilaire 
products.  Central contends that, while it was dependent upon 
Research to provide the products and parts for sale, Research 
was dependent upon Central to sell the products and provide 
warranty 
parts, 
because 
it 
had 
no 
personnel 
capable 
of 
performing such functions.  Thus, Central argues that their 
relationship 
extends 
beyond 
the 
typical 
vendor-vendee 
relationship. 
 
¶22 Central further contends that it has demonstrated that 
termination of its relationship with Research would have a 
No. 
02-1974   
 
13 
 
significant adverse impact on Central's financial well-being.  
Because of the popularity of the Aprilaire brand, and Central's 
efforts to market Aprilaire as the premiere brand, Central 
argues that it would experience difficulty selling another line 
with the same success it experienced with the Aprilaire line.  
Central asserts that, since competing inferences may be drawn 
from the facts in this case, this case should not be resolved on 
summary judgment.  For example, Central rejects Research's 
contention 
that 
it 
did 
not 
impose 
any 
obligations 
or 
requirements on Central.7  Central contends that whether or not a 
community of interest exists should be determined by looking at 
the parties' dealings with each other, not just whether there 
was a written contract.  To this end, Central points out that 
many expectations were placed on Central, including Research's 
expectation 
that 
Central 
deal 
directly 
with 
installer 
contractors, 
maintain 
adequate 
facilities 
with 
appropriate 
inventory to satisfy its customers' needs, be knowledgeable 
about the Aprilaire product line and encourage customers to 
purchase that line.  Central claims that Research regularly 
evaluates its wholesalers, and that Research's district managers 
periodically visit Central to determine how well Central is 
                                                 
7 Central asserts that one of the obligations Research 
imposes on it is a territorial restriction since Research 
requested that Central stop selling in the Madison and Milwaukee 
areas and limit its sales to the Fox River Valley area.  
Moreover, 
Central 
contends 
that 
it 
is 
required 
to 
keep 
sufficient product and parts inventory.  Central asserts that it 
is also required to be knowledgeable about the Aprilaire product 
line.  
No. 
02-1974   
 
14 
 
marketing, storing, and selling the Aprilaire line.  Central 
further claims that Research imposed territory restrictions on 
it because Research attempted to limit Central's sales territory 
to the Fox River Valley area and terminated the relationship 
when Central refused to stop selling in the Madison and 
Milwaukee areas. 
 
¶23 Moreover, Central contends that simply because it 
cannot 
demonstrate 
how 
much 
time 
its 
personnel 
devote 
exclusively to Research's products, this should not be fatal to 
its claim, because Central has demonstrated that it devotes more 
time to the Aprilaire line than to any other.  Central asserts 
that the circuit court was incorrect in holding that the fact 
that Research comprised only eight to nine percent of Central's 
gross revenues was not enough to show a community of interest, 
as Ziegler Co. v. Rexnord, 139 Wis. 2d 593, 407 N.W.2d 873 
(1987), demonstrates that such percentages may be sufficient.  
Given the totality of the circumstances, Central asserts that 
its relationship with Research is well beyond that of the 
typical vendor-vendee relationship.  Central argues that a trial 
is necessary to resolve the reasonable competing inferences that 
can be drawn from the many facts in this case. 
 
¶24 Research 
contends 
that 
summary 
judgment 
was 
appropriate in this case, because Central was unable to 
demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact.  Research argues 
that whether there is a community of interest in this case is 
not a genuine issue of material fact, but a legal issue.  
Research asserts that the lower courts' decisions were not 
No. 
02-1974   
 
15 
 
contrary to Ziegler.  Research contends that the court of 
appeals simply concluded that there was no genuine issue of 
material fact regarding a continuing financial interest and 
interdependence. 
 
¶25 Research 
asserts 
that 
Central 
has 
not 
proven 
interdependence, as most of the evidence it cites, such as 
keeping sufficient Aprilaire inventory on hand, are common in a 
typical vendor-vendee relationship.  Research contends that a 
substantial financial investment is needed to distinguish a 
dealership from a vendor-vendee relationship, and no such 
investment is present in this case.  Research also argues that 
there is no community of interest here, because there is no 
continuing 
financial 
interest 
between 
the 
parties 
or 
interdependence.  Central is unable to demonstrate, Research 
contends, that a large portion of its business is devoted to 
Research's products, or that it has acquired substantial 
specialized assets for Research's goods.  Research argues that 
Central has not demonstrated that it has a financial investment 
in equipment, vehicles, or inventory exclusively related to 
Research's products. 
 
¶26 Moreover, 
Research 
contends 
that 
a 
community of 
interest must be based on the actions of both parties, and 
cannot be unilaterally created by the actions of one party 
alone.  Although Research depends on wholesalers to get its 
products to installer contractors, it contends that it is not 
solely dependent on Central to perform this task, since Central 
was not the only wholesaler in the applicable territory.  
No. 
02-1974   
 
16 
 
Research cautions that a community of interest cannot be found 
in every case where a manufacturer relies on a wholesaler to 
sell its products.  Research further asserts that Central has 
not demonstrated that termination of its dealings with Research 
would have a substantial adverse effect on its business, since 
even if Central could demonstrate loss of future profits, this 
factor alone is not enough to suggest anything more than a 
vendor-vendee relationship.  More important, Research suggests, 
is the fact that Central has been unable to give the court any 
specifics regarding the amount of potential sales it would lose 
by termination of the relationship.             
 
¶27 Research states that the facts in this case are not in 
dispute.  Research contends that, although Central claims that 
Research imposes numerous obligations on it, the reality is that 
none of these is enforceable under contract.  Research claims 
that the only requirement it imposes on Central is that Central 
must pay for all of its shipments by the tenth of every month.  
Research argues that Central's bald statement that it devotes 
more time to the Aprilaire line than to any other product line 
does not satisfy any test under the WFDL.  Research further 
contends that because its products comprise such a small 
percentage 
of 
Central's 
revenues, 
termination 
of 
the 
relationship would not imperil Central's financial well-being.  
Research asserts that Central is not assigned an exclusive sales 
territory, and the fact that Research asked Central to confine 
its sales to the Fox River Valley does not create a material 
issue as to whether a dealership existed.  Research argues that 
No. 
02-1974   
 
17 
 
Central did not invest in goodwill, since it did not buy a 
franchise, 
for 
example, 
and 
there 
is 
no 
unrecoverable 
investment, since Central can sell its Aprilaire inventory until 
it is depleted.  Research further argues that Central's use of 
its logo or trademark is de minimus, since it only distributes a 
small amount of Research's literature.  Finally, Research 
contends that Central has overstated its work with replacement 
parts for the Aprilaire line, and contends that Central merely 
provides the Aprilaire parts and that Central does not repair, 
install, or remove defective parts. 
 
¶28 Chapter 135 of the Wisconsin Statutes is appropriately 
referred 
to 
as 
the 
Wisconsin 
Fair 
Dealership 
Law.  
Wis. Stat. § 135.01.8  The WFDL's purposes are to promote the 
public's interest in the relationships between dealers and 
grantors, and to protect dealers from unfair treatment by 
grantors, who may use their superior economic and bargaining 
powers 
to 
the 
disadvantage 
of 
small 
business 
owners.  
Wis. Stat. § 135.025(2)(a) and (b).9  To this end, the WFDL 
                                                 
8 Wisconsin Stat. § 135.01 states, in relevant part, as 
follows:  "This chapter may be cited as the 'Wisconsin Fair 
Dealership Law.'" 
9 Wisconsin Stat. § 135.025(2) states, in relevant part, as 
follows: 
The underlying purposes and policies of this chapter 
are: 
 
(a) To promote the compelling interest of the 
public in fair business relations between dealers and 
grantors, and in the continuation of dealerships on a 
fair basis; 
No. 
02-1974   
 
18 
 
"shall be liberally construed to promote its underlying remedial 
purposes and policies."  Wis. Stat. § 135.025(1).  See also 
Jungbluth 
v. 
Hometown, 
Inc., 
201 
Wis. 2d 320, 
328, 
548 
N.W.2d 519 (1996).  While the WFDL has been characterized as 
protectionist in nature, because it regulates the free market, 
we note that it is up to the legislature to determine such 
policy matters.  To this end, we must apply the policy adopted 
by the legislature.   
 
¶29 In order to determine if the WFDL applies to a given 
business relationship, the court must determine if the parties' 
relationship could, in fact, be characterized as a dealership 
with one party being the dealer and the other the grantor of the 
dealership.  Although "dealer"10 is clearly defined in the WFDL, 
"dealership" is given a slightly more complex definition.  See 
Baldewein v. Tri-Clover, Inc., 2000 WI 20, ¶12, 233 Wis. 2d 57, 
606 N.W.2d 145.  In summary, a dealership, as set forth in 
Wis. Stat. § 135.02(3)(a), 
is 
comprised 
of 
the 
following 
elements: "(1) a contract or agreement; (2) which grants the 
right to sell or distribute goods or services, or which grants 
the right to use a trade name, logo, advertising or other 
commercial symbol; and (3) a community of interest in the 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
(b) To protect dealers against unfair treatment 
by grantors, who inherently have superior economic 
power and superior bargaining power in the negotiation 
of dealerships. 
10 Wisconsin Stat. § 135.02(2) states, in relevant part, as 
follows:  "'Dealer' means a person who is a grantee of a 
dealership situated in this state." 
No. 
02-1974   
 
19 
 
business 
of 
offering, 
selling 
or 
distributing 
goods 
or 
services."  Bakke Chiropractic Clinic v. Physicians Plus Ins., 
215 Wis. 2d 605, 613, 573 N.W.2d 542 (Ct. App. 1997) (citing 
Kania v. Airborne Freight Corp., 99 Wis. 2d 746, 763, 300 
N.W.2d 63 (1981)). 
¶30 The most vexing element of Wis. Stat. § 135.02(3)(a) 
has been the "community of interest" language, because it has 
not resulted in the development of a bright line rule.  See 
Baldewein, 233 Wis. 2d 57, ¶13.  Section 135.02(1) provides that 
a community of interest "means a continuing financial interest 
between the grantor and grantee in either the operation of the 
dealership business or the marketing of such goods or services."  
Yet this court has concluded that the hallmarks of a community 
of interest are best discerned from examining this definition in 
conjunction with the definition of "dealership, sec. 135.02(3), 
and the legislatively enumerated purposes and policies of WFDL 
set forth in sec. 135.025(2)."  Ziegler, 139 Wis. 2d at 603-04.   
¶31 In Ziegler, we reversed the circuit court's grant of 
summary 
judgment 
and 
concluded 
that 
"[t]he 
legislature 
consciously 
defined 
the 
phrase 
community 
of 
interest 
to 
encompass 
an 
extraordinarily 
diverse 
set 
of 
business 
relationships not limited to the traditional franchise."  Id. at 
602.  We have rejected any rigid tests that would exclusively 
rely on percentages to determine whether a community of interest 
exists.  Id. at 603.  See also Baldewein, 233 Wis. 2d 57, ¶29.  
Instead, we have set forth two guideposts which, if satisfied, 
No. 
02-1974   
 
20 
 
would lead to the conclusion that the parties shared a community 
of interest. 
¶32 One such guidepost is whether the parties share a 
continuing financial interest.  Ziegler, 139 Wis. 2d at 604.  
The 
other 
guidepost 
is 
whether 
the 
parties 
share 
an 
interdependence, which may be characterized as "the degree to 
which the dealer and grantor cooperate, coordinate their 
activities 
and 
share 
common 
goals 
in 
their 
business 
relationship."  Id. at 605.  When construed together, these 
guideposts must reveal an interest in a business relationship 
great enough to threaten the financial health of the dealer, if 
the grantor were to decide to exercise its power to terminate.  
Id.  These stringent requirements are intended to weed out the 
typical vendor-vendee relationship.  Baldewein, 233 Wis. 2d 57, 
¶25. 
¶33 In Ziegler, we stressed the importance of considering 
all facets of a business relationship, as reflected in the 
parties' actual dealings, and not limiting the inquiry to one 
deficient 
factor. 
 
Ziegler, 
139 
Wis. 2d at 
605-06. 
 
We 
enumerated the facets that should be considered to determine 
whether there is a community of interest, and they are as 
follows: 
[H]ow long the parties have dealt with each other; the 
extent and nature of the obligations imposed on the 
parties in the contract or agreement between them; 
what percentage of time or revenue the alleged dealer 
devotes to the alleged grantor's products or services; 
what percentage of the gross proceeds or profits of 
the alleged dealer derives from the alleged grantor's 
No. 
02-1974   
 
21 
 
products or services; the extent and nature of the 
alleged grantor's grant of territory to the alleged 
dealer; the extent and nature of the alleged dealer's 
uses of the alleged grantor's proprietary marks (such 
as trademarks or logos); the extent and nature of the 
alleged dealer's financial investment in inventory, 
facilities, and good will of the alleged dealership; 
the personnel which the alleged dealer devotes to the 
alleged dealership; how much the alleged dealer spends 
on advertising or promotional expenditures for the 
alleged grantor's products or services; the extent and 
nature of any supplementary services provided by the 
alleged dealer to consumers of the alleged grantor's 
products or services. 
Id. at 606. 
¶34 While the abovementioned list does not recite every 
factor that may be considered, it does provide questions that 
are useful in determining whether a community of interest 
exists.11 
                                                 
11 Wisconsin Civil Jury Instruction 2769 relies on the 
factors set forth in Ziegler Co. v. Rexnord, 139 Wis. 2d 593, 
407 N.W.2d 873 (1987).  In aiding the jury in reaching a 
determination regarding whether a community of interest exists, 
the instruction sets forth, in relevant part, the following 
considerations: 
In determining if a community of interest existed between 
(dealer) and (grantor), among the things you should consider 
are: 
How long the parties dealt with each other; 
The extent and nature of the obligations imposed on the 
parties in any contract or agreement between them; 
The percentage of time or revenue the (dealer) devoted to 
(grantor)'s products or services; 
The percentage of the gross proceeds or profits (dealer) 
derived from (grantor)'s products or services; 
The extent and nature of (grantor)'s grant of territory to 
(dealer); 
No. 
02-1974   
 
22 
 
¶35 Given the factors from Ziegler, as also reiterated in 
the jury instruction, and the facts as set forth in the record, 
we conclude that several facets of the relationship between 
Research and Central present genuine issues of material fact 
and/or result in disputed or competing inferences in regard to 
Central's contention that the parties' shared a community of 
interest.  We conclude that the parties' 20-year business 
relationship is a significant factor to be considered.  In 
addition, the financial investment made by Central's owners in 
its warehouse facilities should be considered, since it appears 
that Central based the size of its warehouse, in part, on the 
amount of Aprilaire inventory it stored.12  The dispute as to the 
Madison and Milwaukee areas leads us to conclude that Central 
                                                                                                                                                             
The extent and nature of (dealer)'s uses of (grantor)'s 
proprietary marks (such as trademarks or logos); 
The extent and nature of (dealer)'s financial investment in 
inventory, facilities, and good will of the alleged 
dealership; 
The personnel which (dealer) devotes to the alleged 
dealership; 
How much (dealer) spent on advertising or promotional 
expenditures for the (grantor)'s products or services; 
The extent and nature of any supplementary services 
provided by (dealer) to consumers of (grantor)'s products 
or services. 
12 It appears that this facet presents a genuine issue of 
material fact as to the question of increased lease cost to 
Central due to its claim that its owners had to build new 
warehouse space to house its inventory, including Research's 
Aprilaire products. 
No. 
02-1974   
 
23 
 
may also be able to demonstrate that it had a specific sales 
territory.  Such a grant could be inferred from Research's 
attempt to limit Central's sales to the Fox River Valley.  
Moreover, the only humidifier Central stocked was Research's 
Aprilaire brand.  Other claims that lead to the conclusion that 
there are genuine issues of material fact and reasonable 
alternative inferences to be drawn from undisputed material 
facts that bear on the question of whether there is a community 
of interest are:  Central kept a supply of spare parts on hand 
to serve its installer contractor customers with any problems 
that they may experience with the Aprilaire brand;  Central made 
no profits on such parts, as it sold them to its customers at 
cost;  Central kept a substantial amount of Aprilaire inventory 
in its warehouse at any given time.  While we recognize that the 
sale of Research's products does not comprise a large percentage 
of Central's gross revenues or profits, this fact alone is not 
dispositive, but is a matter to be weighed by the trier of fact.  
¶36 We conclude that, since there are genuine issues of 
material fact and reasonable competing inferences that may be 
drawn from undisputed material facts in the case at hand, this 
case should not have been resolved by the granting of summary 
judgment.  As discussed earlier in this opinion, summary 
judgment is an exacting standard that is not lightly satisfied.  
While we do not conclude that Central must prevail, we do 
conclude that this case should proceed to trial, so that a fact 
finder may determine whether a community of interest, and, 
No. 
02-1974   
 
24 
 
therefore, a dealership relationship, existed between Research 
and Central.  
III 
 
¶37 In 
sum, 
we 
conclude 
that 
summary 
judgment 
was 
improperly granted to Research.  Genuine issues of material fact 
exist here, along with reasonable alternative inferences drawn 
from undisputed material facts, so that a trial is warranted in 
this case to determine whether a community of interest exists 
and, therefore, whether there is a dealership relationship 
between Central and Research under the Wisconsin Fair Dealership 
Law.  Where there are genuine issues of material fact or 
reasonable alternative inferences drawn from undisputed material 
facts, the determination of whether there is a community of 
interest is one which will be made by the trier of fact, based 
on an examination of all of the facets of the business 
relationship.  
By the Court.—The decision of the court of appeals is 
reversed, and the cause remanded to the circuit court for 
further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 
¶38 JON P. WILCOX, J., and DIANE S. SYKES, J., did not 
participate.   
 
No. 
02-1974   
 
 
 
1