Opinion ID: 2211077
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Application of Ch. 122, Stats. 1963.

Text: At the time of the original contract to sell the insurance agency, [3] the Uniform Commercial Code had not yet become effective. [4] The contract was executed on a preprinted conditional sales contract form which purported to be subject to ch. 122, Stats. 1963, the Uniform Conditional Sales Act. It is the defendant's position that the Uniform Conditional Sales Act applies and that the seller's sole remedy under that act is to repossess unless he follows the statutory procedure in obtaining a deficiency judgment. It is undisputed that plaintiff did not follow the statutory procedure here. Plaintiff, on the other hand, contends that the sale of corporate stock does not fall under the Uniform Conditional Sales Act which relates only to the sale of goods. [5] This court considered the exact definition of goods in Smith v. Lingelbach (1922), 177 Wis. 170, 173, 187 N. W. 1007: [6] The Uniform Sales Act does not include within its provisions certificates of stock.... In addition to the fact that the Uniform Sales Act by its terms excluded certificates of stock, there is the additional consideration that in 1913, two years after the adoption of the Uniform Sales Act, the legislature adopted the Uniform Stock Transfer Act . . . which by its terms relates specifically to the transfer of shares of stock in a corporation and would therefore seem to be exclusive of the Uniform Sales Act. The Uniform Stock Transfer Act [7] was still in force at the time of the making of the original buy-sell agreement. It would seem, therefore, that the provisions of the Uniform Conditional Sales Act did not properly apply to the buy-sell agreement, nor would the remedies under that act be applicable to a default on a stock sale. However, defendant urges that the buy-sell agreement evidenced an intent to sell the property of the corporation and that the sale of the shares of stock was only a useful method of effecting the property transfer. This contention is not well taken. It is undisputed that the defendant originally took over the insurance agency as a going concern. The corporation still owned all of the property and still owed all of the debts. The corporate entity existed both before and after the sale and only the management of the corporation changed. These factors lead to the logical conclusion that the parties intended a sale of stock and not a sale of assets. It follows, then, that the provisions of the Uniform Conditional Sales Act did not apply when the buy-sell agreement was defaulted. [8]