SB8 would create a new warranty-remedy framework for “implements of husbandry” in Wisconsin, essentially a lemon-law style protection for farm equipment. If a new implement of husbandry has a defect or condition covered by an express warranty that substantially impairs its use, value, or safety, and the owner or lessee reports the problem and makes the equipment available for repair, the manufacturer, lessor, or authorized dealer must attempt to fix it. The bill defines key terms such as consumer, nonconformity, out of service, and unsuccessful repair attempt, and it limits coverage to defects not caused by abuse, neglect, poor maintenance, or unauthorized modification.
If the same warranty problem is not fixed after at least four repair attempts, or if the equipment is out of service for at least 30 days, the consumer may choose a replacement implement of husbandry or a refund. The refund provisions cover the purchase price, sales tax, finance charges, amounts paid at sale, and collateral costs, with a reasonable allowance for use deducted. For leased equipment, the bill provides a separate refund structure for the lessor and any secured party, while the consumer receives amounts paid under the lease plus sales tax and collateral costs, also reduced by reasonable use. The bill also sets deadlines for manufacturers to provide refunds or replacements after notice from the consumer.
SB8 would also regulate the resale or releasing of returned nonconforming equipment. A manufacturer, lessor, or authorized dealer could not sell or lease a returned implement of husbandry without disclosing the reason it was returned, and a manufacturer that fails to disclose to a dealer would have indemnity obligations and direct liability to an unwitting consumer. In addition, the Department of Revenue would be required to refund sales tax to a manufacturer that refunded sales tax to the consumer, if the manufacturer submits proof of the original tax payment and the consumer refund.
The bill’s impact on state law would be to add a new subchapter to chapter 218 of the Wisconsin statutes and create a specialized warranty remedy for agricultural machinery and related equipment. It would expand consumer-style protections to purchasers and lessees of farm equipment, impose repair, replacement, refund, and disclosure duties on manufacturers, lessors, and dealers, and create a tax-refund mechanism tied to consumer refunds. The bill expressly states that it does not limit any other rights or remedies available under law.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available record is limited because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, but the bill’s introduction and sponsorship suggest an effort to provide stronger protections for farmers and equipment buyers. The bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1, indicating it did not advance to enactment. The main points of contention likely center on the scope of manufacturer liability, the threshold for replacement or refund, the treatment of leased equipment, and the administrative and financial burdens on dealers, manufacturers, and the Department of Revenue.
SB8 would create a new subchapter in chapter 218 governing warranty repair and replacement for implements of husbandry, adding statutory duties for manufacturers, lessors, and authorized dealers to repair covered defects and, after repeated failed repairs or extended downtime, provide a replacement or refund. It would also establish disclosure requirements for resold returned equipment, indemnification obligations for nondisclosure, and a sales-tax refund process administered by the Department of Revenue. The bill would primarily affect agricultural equipment purchasers and lessees, as well as manufacturers, dealers, lessors, and secured lenders.
No committee transcripts or vote tallies were provided, so the record does not show detailed debate or a measured partisan split. The bill appears to have been introduced as a consumer-protection measure for agricultural users, but it ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1. That outcome suggests the proposal did not secure sufficient legislative support, even though its stated purpose was to address warranty problems affecting farm equipment owners and lessees.
Likely areas of contention include whether farm equipment should be subject to a lemon-law style remedy, how many repair attempts should trigger replacement or refund, whether 30 days out of service is the right threshold, and how to allocate costs among manufacturers, dealers, lessors, and consumers. Additional friction points may include the treatment of leased equipment, the requirement to disclose returned nonconforming equipment to future buyers or lessees, and the administrative burden of sales-tax refunds and indemnity obligations. Because no transcripts were provided, specific arguments from supporters or opponents are not available.