California Codes

Cal. Commercial Code § 2725 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1)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.

(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 subdivision (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 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 this code becomes effective.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 74 cases (29 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: MacDonald v. Ford Motor Co., 37 F. Supp. 3d 1087 (N.D. Cal. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

MacDonald v. Ford Motor Co., 37 F. Supp. 3d 1087 (N.D. Cal. 2014). · cites it 3× “The original complaint was filed on June 28, 2013, more than five years after the last purchase, beyond the limitations period.”

Ehrlich v. BMW of North Am., LLC, 801 F. Supp. 2d 908 (C.D. Cal. 2010). · cites it 3× “California courts have applied the four-year statute of limitations in California Commercial Code section 2725 to Song-Beverly Act claims.”

Asghari v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., 42 F. Supp. 3d 1306 (C.D. Cal. 2013). · cites it 2× “The court will not dismiss Calver’s claim as untimely, however, for the same reasons it declines to dismiss her CLRA and UCL claims on limitations grounds.”

H. Russell Taylor's Fire Prevention Serv., Inc. v. Coca Cola Bottling Corp., 27 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1312 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 3× “However, the statute [Com. Code, § 2725] seems to apply only to actual contracts by its own terms: ‘An action for breach of any contract for sale must be commenced within four years.”

Lucas v. Breg, Inc., 212 F. Supp. 3d 950 (S.D. Cal. 2016). · cites it 3× “Under California Commercial Code § 2725, a claim for breach of warranty must be commenced within four years after the claim has accrued, and such claims accrue “when tender of delivery is made.”

Stearns v. Select Comfort Retail Corp., 763 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2010). “Cal. Com.Code § 2725 (setting a four-year limitations period for warranty claims); SAC ¶ 53 (alleging that Schlesinger discovered the mold in his bed in 2003, well outside the four-year limitations period).”

S. California Stroke Rehab. Assocs., Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc., 782 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (S.D. Cal. 2011). · cites it 5× “Statute of Limitations California Commercial Code section 2725 imposes a four-year statute of limitations for breach of warranty claims.”

Beasley v. Conagra Brands, Inc., 374 F. Supp. 3d 869 (N.D. Cal. 2019). “Plaintiff filed his complaint on November 6, 2018, seeking relief for a class period that runs from January 1, 2010, through May 31, 2018. See Docket No. 1; FAC ¶ 94.”

Allen v. Similasan Corp., 96 F. Supp. 3d 1063 (S.D. Cal. 2015). “3d 5 (2008) (quoting Cal. Com.Code § 2725). Under these limitations periods, Rideout’s claims are barred if they accrued prior to February 10, 2008.”

Jbl Enter., Inc. v. Jhirmack Enter., Inc., 519 F. Supp. 1084 (N.D. Cal. 1981). · cites it 2× “” Plaintiffs argue, however, that the distributor agreement is a “contract for sale” within the meaning of California Commercial Code Section 2725, which provides that the parties to such a contract may not reduce the period of limitation to less than one year.”

Valencia v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am. Inc., 119 F. Supp. 3d 1130 (N.D. Cal. 2015). “Cal. Com.Code § 2725. The parties ágree that this action was filed more than four years after the date the De La Rosas purchased their Volkswagen Routan.”

Phoenix Solutions, Inc. v. Sony Elec., Inc., 637 F. Supp. 2d 683 (N.D. Cal. 2009). “See Cal. Com.Code § 2725(1). However, if the software upgrade came with, and predominated over, secondary maintenance and software support in the later service contract, the statute of limitations will not have run on the breach of warranty claim because Sony’s third-party…”

Show all 74 citing cases →

— Cal. Commercial Code § 2725(1) — 5 cases

Ehrlich v. BMW of North Am., LLC, 801 F. Supp. 2d 908 (C.D. Cal. 2010). “California courts have applied the four-year statute of limitations in California Commercial Code section 2725 to Song-Beverly Act claims.”

Roth Grading, Inc. v. Martin Bros. Constr. (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Harris v. LSP Prods. Grp., Inc. (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Parks v. Ethicon, Inc. (S.D. Cal. 2020).

— Cal. Commercial Code § 2725(2) — 3 cases

MacDonald v. Ford Motor Co., 37 F. Supp. 3d 1087 (N.D. Cal. 2014). “The original complaint was filed on June 28, 2013, more than five years after the last purchase, beyond the limitations period.”

S. California Stroke Rehab. Assocs., Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc., 782 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (S.D. Cal. 2011). “Statute of Limitations California Commercial Code section 2725 imposes a four-year statute of limitations for breach of warranty claims.”

Snowman v. FCA US LLC (D. Del. 2025).

— Cal. Commercial Code § 2725(a) — 1 case

Asghari v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., 42 F. Supp. 3d 1306 (C.D. Cal. 2013). “The court will not dismiss Calver’s claim as untimely, however, for the same reasons it declines to dismiss her CLRA and UCL claims on limitations grounds.”

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.