Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 490:2-725 (2026)

Statute of limitations in contracts for sale

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     §490:2-725  Statute of limitations in contracts for sale.  (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 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 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 January 1, 1967. [L 1965, c 208, §2-725; HRS §490:2-725]

 

Case Notes

 

  For cases involving artwork, a warranty of authenticity given by the merchant constitutes an express warranty of future performance sufficient to toll the statute of limitations.  745 F. Supp. 1556.

  Applies to an implied warranty of merchantability.  747 F. Supp. 1396.

  Limitations period for plaintiff's warranty claims elapsed, at the very latest, four years after last alleged date of decedent's exposure to defendant's asbestos-containing products.  854 F. Supp. 702.

  No equal protection violation, where plaintiff argued that §490:2-725 discriminated among two classes of warranty claimants, and appeared to argue that UCC arbitrarily discriminated among differing classes of defendants, insofar as it granted partial immunity to those in commercial sales without similarly limiting the liability of others potentially liable for industrial diseases.  854 F. Supp. 702.

  Plaintiff's breach of warranty claims were barred by operation of four year statute of limitations applicable to such claims, which period ran at the latest, four years from date plaintiff had ruptured breast implants removed from plaintiff's body.  945 F. Supp. 1334.

  Section's limitations period applies to implied warranty claim for personal injury from pacemaker, rather than two-year limitations period for personal injury actions under §657-7.  74 H. 1, 837 P.2d 1273.

  UCC statute of limitations applies to breach of express warranty claim for personal injury.  86 H. 383 (App.), 949 P.2d 1004.

  By express limitation, §657-18 does not apply to toll the statute of limitations period set forth in this section.  93 H. 174 (App.), 998 P.2d 55.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case: Larsen v. Pacesetter Sys., Inc., 837 P.2d 1273 (Haw. 1992).
Larsen v. Pacesetter Sys., Inc., 837 P.2d 1273 (Haw. 1992). · cites it 3× “The UCC provides: “A seller’s warranty whether express or implied extends to any person who may reasonably be expected to use, consume or be affected by the goods and who is injured by breach of the warranty.” HRS § 490:2-318 (1985).”
Balog v. Ctr. Art Gallery-Hawaii, Inc., 745 F. Supp. 1556 (D. Haw. 1990). “although the action would otherwise be barred by the period of limitations.” Furthermore, the U.C.C. statute of limitations specifically provides that it “does not alter the law on the tolling of the statute of limitations.”
Gentry Homes, Ltd. v. Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. (D. Haw. 2019). “Haw. Rev. Stat. § 490:2-725 . The Parties agree that Plaintiff’s breach of warranty claim is subject to the four-year statute of limitations pursuant to Section 490:2-725.”
Hardy v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc. (D.N.J. 2025). “Haw. Rev. Stat. § 490:2-725 . The statute further states that “[t|his section does not alter the law on tolling of the statute of limitations.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 490:2-725(4) — 1 case
Balog v. Ctr. Art Gallery-Hawaii, Inc., 745 F. Supp. 1556 (D. Haw. 1990). “although the action would otherwise be barred by the period of limitations.” Furthermore, the U.C.C. statute of limitations specifically provides that it “does not alter the law on the tolling of the statute of limitations.”
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.