Wis. Stat. § 240.10
Wis. Stat. § 240.10
If a defective commission agreement signed by a principal clearly refers to a certain transaction in which a binding lease or sales contract has previously been made, it does not defeat the purpose of sub. (1) to allow the integration of that document into the commission agreement, even though there is not a specific reference to the document itself; however, if the reference to the transaction is not clear and certain, then integration should not be allowed, even in the case of a previously existing lease or sales contract. Buckman v. E. H. Schaefer & Associates, Inc. 50 Wis. 2d 755, 185 N.W.2d 328 (1971). If an otherwise sufficient written memorandum is executed after the broker has performed his or her services, the fact that it specifically states that all services have been completed and is signed by the principal should be deemed substantial compliance with the requirement that a time period be stated. Buckman v. E. H. Schaefer & Associates, Inc. 50 Wis. 2d 755, 185 N.W.2d 328 (1971). A valid real estate contract existed, notwithstanding the absence of a co-owner's signature. Winston v. Minkin, 63 Wis. 2d 46, 216 N.W.2d 38. This section was not applicable in a broker's suit for a commission for negotiating a lease when oral authorization allegedly given to the broker was communicated to the broker in Wisconsin but the place of performance of the alleged contract was Tennessee. Paulson v. Shapiro, 490 F.2d 1 (1973). This section barred an action in quantum meruit for services related to the sale of real estate. Farnsworth, McKoane & Co. v. North Shore Savings & Loan Association, 504 F. Supp. 673 (1981).