Wipperfurth v. U-Haul Co. of Western Wisconsin, Inc.

This writer would hold that the distinction discussed in the majority opinion between the right to contract and the obligation of contract is one that leads to a significant difference.

The framers of the constitution considered having the ex post facto law prohibition in the constitution applicable to the obligation of contract impairment. However, due to Blackstone’s commentaries on the English common law at the time, the constitution was adopted with the distinction made.1

The belief was that the obligation of contract needed protection from interference, as well as protecting against ex…