Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 47
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-2725 (2026)

Statute of limitations in contracts for sale

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. An action for breach of any contract for sale must be commenced within four years after the cause of action has accrued. By the original agreement the parties may reduce the period of limitation to not less than one year but may not extend it.

B. A cause of action accrues when the breach occurs, regardless of the aggrieved party's lack of knowledge of the breach. A breach of warranty occurs when tender of delivery is made, except that where a warranty explicitly extends to future performance of the goods and discovery of the breach must await the time of such performance the cause of action accrues when the breach is or should have been discovered.

C. Where an action commenced within the time limited by subsection A is so terminated as to leave available a remedy by another action for the same breach such other action may be commenced after the expiration of the time limited and within six months after the termination of the first action unless the termination resulted from voluntary discontinuance or from dismissal for failure or neglect to prosecute.

D. This section does not alter the law on tolling of the statute of limitations nor does it apply to causes of action which have accrued before January 1, 1968.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1985–2022 · leading case: Gust, Rosenfeld & Henderson v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 898 P.2d 964 (Ariz. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gust, Rosenfeld & Henderson v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 898 P.2d 964 (Ariz. 1995). · cites it 4× “, A.R.S. § 47-2725(B) (1988) (A cause of action for breach of a contract for sale of goods accrues when the breach occurs, regardless of the aggrieved party's lack of knowledge of the breach); A.”
Baseline Fin. Servs. v. Madison, 278 P.3d 321 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “”) § 47-2725(A). Generally, a cause of action accrues when the contract is breached.”
Arvizu v. Medtronic Inc., 41 F. Supp. 3d 783 (D. Ariz. 2014). · cites it 2× “Defendants contend that the relevant statutes of limitations are two years after the cause of action accrues for personal injury actions (A.R.S. §§ 12-542 and 12-551), three years for fraud claims (A.”
Hillery v. Georgie Boy Mfg., Inc., 341 F. Supp. 2d 1112 (D. Ariz. 2004). · cites it 2× “Similarly, a breach of warranty claim brought pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is not limited to breaches of motor vehicle warranties because the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act applies to all “consumers goods”, including motor vehicles.”
Gates v. LaBelle's Distrib. of Arizona, Inc., 708 P.2d 114 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 8× “§§ 12-542, 12-551 and 12-681(3), or the four year Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) statute of limitations provision for breach of contract actions as set forth in A.R.S. § 47-2725. On October 16, 1978 the appellants (Gates) purchased a television set manufactured by appellee Sony…”
Drew v. United Producers & Consumers Coop., 778 P.2d 1227 (Ariz. 1989). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 47-2725(A). Finding that Drew’s complaint stated a products liability claim, the trial court granted United’s motion to dismiss, gave it judgment on Drew’s complaint, and awarded United its costs.”
Huntington v. Johnson & Johnson (D. Ariz. 2022). · cites it 8× “) Specifically, the 14 Court noted that, under A.R.S. § 47-2725, express warranty claims are generally subject to 15 a four-year statute of limitations and generally accrue at the time of product delivery; that 16 the device was implanted in Plaintiff in June 2009 but she did…”
Huntington v. Johnson & Johnson (D. Ariz. 2021). · cites it 3× “Defendants contend, and Dehart doesn’t dispute, that a claim for 10 breach of express warranty is governed by A.R.S. § 47-2725, which generally establishes 11 a four-year statute of limitations.”
Maricopa, Cnty. of v. Off. Depot Inc. (D. Ariz. 2019). · cites it 2× “argues: (1) “[a] motion in limine is an improper 28 vehicle by which to seek summary judgment”; (2) “Office Depot is relitigating issues - 14 - 1 already addressed by this Court”; (3) “[t]he contractual dispute between Maricopa County 2 and Office Depot is governed by Arizona…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-2725(A) — 4 cases
Arvizu v. Medtronic Inc., 41 F. Supp. 3d 783 (D. Ariz. 2014). “Defendants contend that the relevant statutes of limitations are two years after the cause of action accrues for personal injury actions (A.R.S. §§ 12-542 and 12-551), three years for fraud claims (A.”
Hillery v. Georgie Boy Mfg., Inc., 341 F. Supp. 2d 1112 (D. Ariz. 2004). “Similarly, a breach of warranty claim brought pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is not limited to breaches of motor vehicle warranties because the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act applies to all “consumers goods”, including motor vehicles.”
Baseline Fin. Servs. v. Madison, 278 P.3d 321 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). “”) § 47-2725(A). Generally, a cause of action accrues when the contract is breached.”
Drew v. United Producers & Consumers Coop., 778 P.2d 1227 (Ariz. 1989). “See A.R.S. § 47-2725(A). Finding that Drew’s complaint stated a products liability claim, the trial court granted United’s motion to dismiss, gave it judgment on Drew’s complaint, and awarded United its costs.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-2725(B) — 4 cases
Gust, Rosenfeld & Henderson v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 898 P.2d 964 (Ariz. 1995). “, A.R.S. § 47-2725(B) (1988) (A cause of action for breach of a contract for sale of goods accrues when the breach occurs, regardless of the aggrieved party's lack of knowledge of the breach); A.”
Baseline Fin. Servs. v. Madison, 278 P.3d 321 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). “”) § 47-2725(A). Generally, a cause of action accrues when the contract is breached.”
Gates v. LaBelle's Distrib. of Arizona, Inc., 708 P.2d 114 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). “§§ 12-542, 12-551 and 12-681(3), or the four year Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) statute of limitations provision for breach of contract actions as set forth in A.R.S. § 47-2725. On October 16, 1978 the appellants (Gates) purchased a television set manufactured by appellee Sony…”
Huntington v. Johnson & Johnson (D. Ariz. 2022). “) Specifically, the 14 Court noted that, under A.R.S. § 47-2725, express warranty claims are generally subject to 15 a four-year statute of limitations and generally accrue at the time of product delivery; that 16 the device was implanted in Plaintiff in June 2009 but she did…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.