“We are … unpersuaded that the purpose of Wis. Stat. sec. 440.77 was to allow those contracting with loan brokers to avoid fulfilling their contractual obligations by providing them with ‘a technical escape from a fair and definite agreement.’ [Citation] Further, Nordic Group has not shown that ‘the factors that argue against enforcement clearly outweigh the law’s traditional interest in protecting the expectations of the parties.’ The legislature intended to authorize the division of banking to discipline loan solicitors who fail to meet professional standards, not to void otherwise valid agreements. The division of banking could have decided to discipline Felland if it believed that he was not acting in accordance with Wis. Stat. sec. 440.77. Regardless, we decline to enact a statute of frauds for agreements with loan solicitors by judicial fiat.”
Finally, where plaintiff named defendant individually in his complaint, if defendant wished to claim that he was acting only as agent for the corporations, he was obligated to raise that issue in his answer. Because defendant did not raise that issue until after the trial concluded, he has waived his right to claim that he was acting only as a corporate agent and the trial court erred in dismissing him from the case.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
Recommended for publication in the official reports.
Dist IV, Sauk County, Wolfe, J., Dykman, J.
For Appellant: Anthony A. Tomaselli, Madison; Kristin Graham Noel, Madison
For Respondent: Mark R. Sewell, Cambridge; Stephen A. DiTullio, Madison