(1) An action for breach of any contract for sale must be commenced within the time period prescribed in section 13-80-101, C.R.S. This period of limitation may not be varied by agreement of the parties.
(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) of this section 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 title becomes effective.
Source: L. 65: p. 1344, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 155-2-725. L. 86: (1) amended, p. 702, § 5, effective July 1.
Editor's note - Colorado legislative change: In subsection (1), Colorado substituted the three-year statute of limitations in § 13-80-101 for the four-year statute of limitations in the uniform act. The official text also provided that the parties could reduce the period of limitation to a minimum of one year, but they could not extend the period. Colorado has provided that the period of limitation may not be reduced or extended.
ARTICLE 2.5 Leases Editor's note: (1) The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws numbered this article as "2A". In C.R.S., it is numbered as article "2.5". References in the OFFICIAL COMMENTS to specific sections can be translated to C.R.S. numbers by changing "2A" to "2.5" and, where necessary, adding the appropriate title of C.R.S. For example, a reference in an OFFICIAL COMMENT to section "2A-101" would translate to section "4-2.5- 101".
(2) The numbering and sequencing of C.R.S. subsections do not necessarily correspond with the numbering and sequencing of subsections in the uniform act.
PART 1
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Notes of Decisions
Persichini v. Brad Ragan, Inc., 735 P.2d 168 (Colo. 1987).
· cites it 24× “Laws 819, 819, and states: Notwithstanding any other statutory provisions to the contrary, all actions except those governed by section 4-2-725, C.R.S., brought against a manufacturer or seller of a product, regardless of the substantive legal theory or theories upon which the…”
Ayala by & Through Ayala v. Joy Mfg. Co., 580 F. Supp. 521 (D. Colo. 1984).
· cites it 16× “Colo.Rev.Stat. § 4-2-725. According to that statute, such a cause of action accrues when the breach occurs, and for breach of warranty claims, the breach is deemed to occur at the time of delivery of the goods.”
Boyd v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Prods., Inc., 776 P.2d 1125 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 15× “5(1) at 819 provides: “Notwithstanding any other statutory provisions to the contrary, all actions except those governed by section 4-2-725, C.R.S. 1973 [four year statute of limitations for an action for breach of a contract for sale], brought against a manufacturer or seller…”
Zertuche v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 706 P.2d 424 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 7× “Wards further argues that plaintiffs breach of warranty claim was barred by the statute of limitations set forth in § 4-2-725, C.R.S. We conclude this defense was not timely raised.”
Miller v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 817 P.2d 111 (Colo. 1991).
· cites it 6× “5(1) provided: Notwithstanding any other statutory provisions to the contrary, all actions except those governed by section 4-2-725, C.R.S.1973, brought against a manufacturer or seller of a product, regardless of the substantive legal theory or theories upon which the action is…”
Wieser v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 596 F. Supp. 1473 (D. Colo. 1984).
· cites it 9× “Defendant’s Brief asserts that plaintiffs’ Third, Fourth, and Fifth Claims for Relief are barred by the four-year limitations period of Colo.Rev.Stat. § 4-2-725 (1983). Defendant characterizes these as contract claims based on express and implied warranties, and points out that…”
Loughridge v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 192 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (D. Colo. 2002).
· cites it 4× “See Colo.Rev. Stat. § 4-2-725; 13-80-101. Section 4-2-725 provides: A cause of action accrues when the breach occurs, regardless of the aggrieved party’s lack of knowledge of the breach.”
Smith v. Union Supply Co., 675 P.2d 333 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 5× “[WJhere 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.”
Stanske v. Wazee Elec. Co., 722 P.2d 402 (Colo. 1986).
· cites it 3× “The latter statute provides in relevant part: Notwithstanding any other statutory provisions to the contrary, all actions except those governed by section 4-2-725, C.R.S., brought against a manufacturer or seller of a product, regardless of the substantive legal theory or…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-2-725(1) — 8 cases
Persichini v. Brad Ragan, Inc., 735 P.2d 168 (Colo. 1987).
“Laws 819, 819, and states: Notwithstanding any other statutory provisions to the contrary, all actions except those governed by section 4-2-725, C.R.S., brought against a manufacturer or seller of a product, regardless of the substantive legal theory or theories upon which the…”
Smith v. Union Supply Co., 675 P.2d 333 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983).
“[WJhere 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.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-2-725(2) — 8 cases
Boyd v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Prods., Inc., 776 P.2d 1125 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).
“5(1) at 819 provides: “Notwithstanding any other statutory provisions to the contrary, all actions except those governed by section 4-2-725, C.R.S. 1973 [four year statute of limitations for an action for breach of a contract for sale], brought against a manufacturer or seller…”
Smith v. Union Supply Co., 675 P.2d 333 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983).
“[WJhere 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.”
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.