Wis. Stat. § 402.102

Unless the context otherwise requires, this chapter applies to transactions in goods; it does not apply to any transaction which although in the form of 2402.102 UCC - SALES an unconditional contract to sell or present sale is intended to operate only as a security transaction nor does this chapter impair or repeal any statute regulating sales to consumers, farmers or other specified classes of buyers. A consignment that involves a delivery of goods to a merchant who has been induced to accept them by an agreement from the consignor that permits their return in lieu of payment if they are not resold is a security consignment governed by ch. 409, as contrasted to a true consignment. Clark Oil & Refining Co. v. Liddicoat, 65 Wis. 2d 612, 223 N.W.2d 530 (1974). A mixed contract for goods and services is subject to this chapter if the predominant factor is a transaction of sale, with labor incidentally involved. Van Sistine v. Tollard, 95 Wis. 2d 678, 291 N.W.2d 636 (Ct. App. 1980). A contract for development of computer software is primarily a service contract and is not subject to the Uniform Commercial Code. Micro-Managers, Inc. v. Gregory, 147 Wis. 2d 500, 434 N.W.2d 97 (Ct. App. 1988). This chapter does not just apply to a sale as that term is defined in s. 402.106 (6), but to the more general aspect of commerce: “transactions in goods.” The reach of Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) article 2, adopted as this chapter, goes considerably beyond the confines of the type of transaction that the UCC itself defines to be a sale, namely, the passing of title from a party called the seller to one denominated a buyer for a price. Estate of Kriefall v. Sizzler USA Franchise, Inc., 2011 WI App 101, 335 Wis. 2d 151, 801 N.W.2d 781, 09-1212. Wisconsin applies the “predominant purpose” test to determine whether a mixed contract is subject to the Uniform Commercial Code. The predominant purpose test relies on both quantitative and subjective factors, including the language of the contract, the nature of the business of the supplier, the intrinsic worth of the materials, the circumstances of the parties, and the primary objective they hoped to achieve by entering into the contract. Ultimately, the court must consider both objective and subjective factors to determine whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the predominant purpose of the contract is for the sale of goods or services. Marquette University v. Kuali, Inc., 584 F. Supp. 3d 720 (2022).