Ark. Code Ann. » Title 4 Chapter 02
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 4-2-725 (2026)

Statute of limitations in contracts for sale

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. An action for breach of any contract for sale must be commenced within four (4) 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 (1) year but may not extend it.
  2. 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.
  3. Where an action commenced within the time limited by subsection (1) 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 (6) months after the termination of the first action unless the termination resulted from voluntary discontinuance or from dismissal for failure or neglect to prosecute.
  4. 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 midnight, December 31, 1961.

History. Acts 1961, No. 185, § 2-725; A.S.A. 1947, § 85-2-725.

Research References

ALR.

Causes of action governed by limitations period in UCC § 2-725. 49 A.L.R.5th 1.

Applicability of UCC Article 2 to Mixed Contracts for Sale of Consumer Goods and Services. 1 A.L.R.7th Art. 3 (2015).

Applicability of UCC Article 2 to Mixed Contracts for Sale of Goods and Services: Distributorship, Franchise, and Similar Business Contracts. 8 A.L.R.7th Art. 4 (2015).

Applicability of UCC Article 2 to Mixed Contracts for Sale of Business Goods and Services: Manufacturing, Construction, and Similar Contracts. 15 A.L.R.7th Art. 7 (2015).

Ark. L. Rev.

Unconscionable Contracts and the Uniform Commercial Code, 20 Ark. L. Rev. 165.

Legislative Note — Act 111 of 1973: An Act to Impose Liability for Injury and Damages Done in Certain Circumstances by Defective Products, 27 Ark. L. Rev. 562.

For Whom the Bell Tolls — An Interpretation of the UCC's Exception as to Accrual of a Cause of Action for Future Performance Warranties, 28 Ark. L. Rev. 312.

The Personal Injury Action in Warranty — Has the Arkansas Strict Liability Statute Rendered It Obsolete? 28 Ark. L. Rev. 335.

Note, The Arkansas Product Liability Act of 1979, 35 Ark. L. Rev. 364.

Case Notes

Applicability.

The Arkansas savings statutes, this section and § 16-56-126, apply to actions originally filed in a foreign state where the original action was commenced within the statute of limitations specified for similar causes of action under Arkansas law. LaBarge, Inc. v. Universal Circuits, Inc., 751 F. Supp. 807 (W.D. Ark. 1990).

The three-year statute of limitations found in § 16-116-103 of the Arkansas Product Liability Act of 1979, rather than the general four-year limitation in this section, governs a breach-of-warranty suit when damages for personal injury are sought; the Product Liability Act is both more specific and more recent than Arkansas's adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code. Follette v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 41 F.3d 1234 (8th Cir. 1994).

Appellants' warranty claims were barred by the limitations period of the Arkansas Product Liability Act, § 16-116-103, instead of the limitations period of the Uniform Commercial Code in this section, because a claim for the costs of repairing the buses with corroded flooring would be a claim for property damage within the meaning of the Act, § 16-116-102(5). IC Corp. v. Hoover Treated Wood Prods., 2011 Ark. App. 589, 385 S.W.3d 880 (2011).

Court of appeals did not need to decide whether appellants' claims for “economic loss” were covered by this section, the Uniform Commercial Code, instead of the Arkansas Product Liability Act, § 16-116-103, because appellants failed to plead or present evidence as to lost profits or lost goodwill, matters that had to be specifically pled under Ark. R. Civ. P. 9(g). IC Corp. v. Hoover Treated Wood Prods., 2011 Ark. App. 589, 385 S.W.3d 880 (2011).

Even if the court interpreted the buyer's limited promotional duty as creating a “mixed” contract for the sale of goods and services, the agreement was fundamentally one for the sale of goods, and the Uniform Commercial Code governed; therefore, the four-year statute of limitations applied to the supplier's breach of contract claim. B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Fastenal Co., 688 F.3d 917 (8th Cir. 2012).

Trial court erred in granting summary judgment to a distributor in a manufacturer's breach of contract action and in dismissing a manufacturer's complaint as time-barred because a material fact question existed on whether the parties' transactions embodied a sale-of-goods relationship versus an oral sale-of-services contract. Lucci Corp. v. Breaux Mfg. Co., 2013 Ark. App. 705 (2013).

Claim Barred.

Warranty claim, based on goods delivered more than four years prior to the filing of plaintiff's action, was barred. Jackson v. Swift-Eckrich, 830 F. Supp. 486 (W.D. Ark. 1993).

Statute of limitations began to run no later than June 2005, when the supplier alleged that the buyer failed to perform as required by the agreement; because the complaint was filed on May 3, 2010, well more than four years after the alleged breach in June 2005, the statute of limitations barred the breach-of-contract claim. B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Fastenal Co., 688 F.3d 917 (8th Cir. 2012).

Extension of Warranty.

Action for breach of warranty was barred by this section, where action was not brought until after the expiration of the statutory period, since an implied warranty could not be explicitly extended to future performance. General Motors Corp. v. Tate, 257 Ark. 347, 516 S.W.2d 602 (1974).

Cited: Wawak v. Stewart, 247 Ark. 1093, 449 S.W.2d 922 (1970); Trace X Chem., Inc. v. Gulf Oil Chem. Co., 724 F.2d 68 (8th Cir. 1983); Mobil Exploration & Producing N. Am., Inc. v. Graham Royalty Ltd., 910 F.2d 504 (8th Cir. 1990).

Chapter 2A Leases

Publisher's Notes. Acts 1993, No. 439, § 5, provided that:

“Transactions within the scope of this act and validly entered into before the effective date of this act, and the rights, duties, and interests flowing from them, remain valid thereafter and may be terminated, completed, consummated, or enforced as required or permitted by any statute or other law amended or repealed by this act as though such repeal or amendment had not occurred.”

Research References

ALR.

Computer sales and leases, time when cause of action for failure of performance accrues. 90 A.L.R.4th 298.

U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.

Legislative Survey, Lease Law, 16 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 153.

Am. Jur. 8A Am. Jur. 2d, Bailments, § 269 et seq.

Part 1 — General Provisions

Publisher's Notes. For Comments regarding the Uniform Commercial Code, see Commentaries Volume A.

Effective Dates. Acts 2001, No. 1439, § 23: July 1, 2001. Emergency clause provided: “It is hereby found and determined by the General Assembly that the present Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code which exists in all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico is obsolescent and is in need of significant expansion to cover new categories of collateral, to promote electronic filing, to reduce duplicate filing, and to resolve conflicting case law. The revisions contained in this Act will bring greater certainty to financing transactions, and will reduce both their cost and the cost of credit. Because current Article 9 is uniform throughout the United States, it becomes essential that the effective date for the substantial revisions contemplated by this Act be the same in every state. If Arkansas and all of the other states and territories do not act in concert and enact a common effective date, severe complications will arise. For example, the proper place to perfect a security interest depends on the law of the state where the issue is litigated. Therefore, the rules for filing must be uniform at all times. Because the several states are proposing that the revised Article 9 become effective on July 1, 2001 an emergency is hereby declared to exist and this Act being necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health, and safety shall be in full force and effect on July 1, 2001.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case: IC Corp. v. Hoover Treated Wood Prods., Inc., 385 S.W.3d 880 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
IC Corp. v. Hoover Treated Wood Prods., Inc., 385 S.W.3d 880 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “International contends that its warranty claim was timely filed because it was subject to the four-year limitations period provided by the Uniform Commercial Code in Ark.Code Ann. § 4-2-725 (Repl.2001). International further argues that its warranty claims are based on “economic…”
Labarge, Inc. v. Universal Circuits Inc., 751 F. Supp. 807 (W.D. Ark. 1990). · cites it 7× “Ark. Code Ann. § 4-2-725 (1987). Defendant argues the cause of action accrued on the date the invoices were sent and delivery was made to LaBarge.”
B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Fastenal Co., 688 F.3d 917 (8th Cir. 2012). · cites it 3× “See Ark. Code Ann. § 4-2-725 (4). In this case, there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether B & B was ignorant of the facts regarding Fastenal’s continuous breaching conduct.”
Jackson v. Swift-Eckrich, 830 F. Supp. 486 (W.D. Ark. 1993). · cites it 2× “Ark.Code Ann. § 4-2-725 provides: (1) An action for breach of any contract for sale must be commenced within four (4) years after the cause of action has ac (2) A cause of action accrues when the breach occurs, regardless of the aggrieved party’s lack of knowledge of the breach.”
Follette v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 41 F.3d 1234 (8th Cir. 1994). “The Product Liability Act is both more specific and more recent than Arkansas’s adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code.”
The Lucci Corp. v. Breaux Mfg., 2013 Ark. App. 705 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “In 2011, NEP sued Breaux, alleging breach of contract for the sale of goods pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 4-2-725 . After answering the complaint, Breaux moved for summary judgment, arguing that the three-year statute of limitations in Ark.”
J&B Tankers Inc v. Navistar Int'l Corp. (E.D. Ark. 2021). · cites it 4× “”8 “An action for breach of contract for sale must be commenced within four (4) years after the cause of action has accrued[,]” Ark. Code Ann. § 4-2-725 (1), and a cause of action “accrues when the breach occurs, regardless of the aggrieved party's lack of knowledge of the…”
Church on the Rock - Texarkana v. Ace Signs of Arkansas, LLC, 2025 Ark. App. 35 (Ark. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 4× “Ark. Code Ann. § 4-2-725 (Repl. 2020). Ace argues that COTR consistently claimed below that the alleged defects appeared from the time the sign was installed.”
Ark. Code Ann. § 4-2-725(1): 1 case
B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Fastenal Co., 688 F.3d 917 (8th Cir. 2012). “See Ark. Code Ann. § 4-2-725 (4). In this case, there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether B & B was ignorant of the facts regarding Fastenal’s continuous breaching conduct.”
Ark. Code Ann. § 4-2-725(2): 2 cases
B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Fastenal Co., 688 F.3d 917 (8th Cir. 2012). “See Ark. Code Ann. § 4-2-725 (4). In this case, there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether B & B was ignorant of the facts regarding Fastenal’s continuous breaching conduct.”
Church on the Rock - Texarkana v. Ace Signs of Arkansas, LLC, 2025 Ark. App. 35 (Ark. Ct. App. 2025). “Ark. Code Ann. § 4-2-725 (Repl. 2020). Ace argues that COTR consistently claimed below that the alleged defects appeared from the time the sign was installed.”
Ark. Code Ann. § 4-2-725(3): 1 case
Labarge, Inc. v. Universal Circuits Inc., 751 F. Supp. 807 (W.D. Ark. 1990). “Ark. Code Ann. § 4-2-725 (1987). Defendant argues the cause of action accrued on the date the invoices were sent and delivery was made to LaBarge.”
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.