ILCS » Chapter 810 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

810 ILCS 5/2-725 (2026)

Statute of Limitations in Contracts for Sale

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(810 ILCS 5/2-725) (from Ch. 26, par. 2-725)
    Sec. 2-725. Statute of Limitations in Contracts for Sale.
    (1) An action for breach of any contract for sale must be commenced within 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 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 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 this Act becomes effective.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 2101.)


 
    (810 ILCS 5/Art. 2A heading)
ARTICLE 2A. LEASES


 
    (810 ILCS 5/Art. 2A Pt. 1 heading)
PART 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 49 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1994–2024 · leading case: Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 770 N.E.2d 177 (Ill. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 770 N.E.2d 177 (Ill. 2002). · cites it 4× “Contact Claim Limitations Period Defendants argue that plaintiff's claim for breach of the dealer agreements was barred under the four-year statute of limitations contained in article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) (810 ILCS 5/2-725 (West 2000)). The trial court…”
Gwendolyn Phillips v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 736 F.3d 1076 (7th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “But both the five-year and the ten-year statutes of limitations have an exception for contracts governed by section 2-725 of the Uniform Commercial Code (codified for Illinois in 810 ILCS 5/2-725), the four-year statute.”
McMahon v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 301 F. Supp. 3d 866 (E.D. Ill. 2018). · cites it 3× “Rather, defendants argue, the four-year statute of limitation in 810 ILCS 5/2-725 is applicable. Having already concluded that the letter was deceptive on the independently sufficient ground that it did not "make clear to the recipient that the law prohibits the collector from…”
Maldonado v. Creative Woodworking Concepts, Inc., 694 N.E.2d 1021 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). · cites it 3× “DISCUSSION Plaintiffs contend that the court erred by dismissing their complaint because it alleged a breach of warranty action under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and that the applicable statute of limitations as provided in section 2-725(1) of the UCC (810 ILCS 5/2-725(1)…”
Zielinski v. Miller, 660 N.E.2d 1289 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996). · cites it 5× “Knapp and Peoria Brick each filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to sections 2-615 (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 1992)) and 2-619(a)(5) (735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(5) (West 1992)) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Knapp's motion claimed that counts I through III failed to state a cause of…”
BRUEL & KJAER v. Vill. of Bensenville, 969 N.E.2d 445 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). · cites it 3× “u Page County dismissing its complaint against defendant, the Suburban O'Hare Commission, pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2010)), on the ground that plaintiff's complaint was filed outside the four-year statute of…”
Newell v. Newell, 942 N.E.2d 776 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). “810 ILCS 5/2-725(2) (West 2006) (breach of warranty; discovery rule applies where warranty extends to future performance); Zielinski v.”
Horbach v. Kaczmarek, 288 F.3d 969 (7th Cir. 2002). “At the latest, the period began to run on February 5, 1991, when Horbach's agent inspected the equipment and realized that it had not been completed in conformance with the terms of the purchase order.”
Sille v. McCann Constr. Specialties Co., 638 N.E.2d 676 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994). “Section 2-725 of the UCC provides in pertinent part: "(1) An action for breach of any contract for sale must be commenced within 4 years after the cause of action has accrued.”
Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings, LLC, 821 F.3d 871 (7th Cir. 2016). “ILCS 5/13-206, even though the statute of limitations for suits to collect the underlying .”
Progressive N. Ins. Co. of Illinois v. Ford Motor Co., 259 F. Supp. 3d 887 (S.D. Ill. 2017). “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…”
Horbach v. Kaczmarek, 915 F. Supp. 18 (N.D. Ill. 1996). “The defendants argue, therefore, that the limitations period began to run on that date.”
Show all 49 citing cases →
— 810 ILCS 5/2-725(1) — 19 cases
Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 770 N.E.2d 177 (Ill. 2002). “Contact Claim Limitations Period Defendants argue that plaintiff's claim for breach of the dealer agreements was barred under the four-year statute of limitations contained in article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) (810 ILCS 5/2-725 (West 2000)). The trial court…”
Gwendolyn Phillips v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 736 F.3d 1076 (7th Cir. 2013). “But both the five-year and the ten-year statutes of limitations have an exception for contracts governed by section 2-725 of the Uniform Commercial Code (codified for Illinois in 810 ILCS 5/2-725), the four-year statute.”
Maldonado v. Creative Woodworking Concepts, Inc., 694 N.E.2d 1021 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). “DISCUSSION Plaintiffs contend that the court erred by dismissing their complaint because it alleged a breach of warranty action under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and that the applicable statute of limitations as provided in section 2-725(1) of the UCC (810 ILCS 5/2-725(1)…”
Horbach v. Kaczmarek, 288 F.3d 969 (7th Cir. 2002). “At the latest, the period began to run on February 5, 1991, when Horbach's agent inspected the equipment and realized that it had not been completed in conformance with the terms of the purchase order.”
Zielinski v. Miller, 660 N.E.2d 1289 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996). “Knapp and Peoria Brick each filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to sections 2-615 (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 1992)) and 2-619(a)(5) (735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(5) (West 1992)) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Knapp's motion claimed that counts I through III failed to state a cause of…”
— 810 ILCS 5/2-725(2) — 14 cases
Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 770 N.E.2d 177 (Ill. 2002). “Contact Claim Limitations Period Defendants argue that plaintiff's claim for breach of the dealer agreements was barred under the four-year statute of limitations contained in article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) (810 ILCS 5/2-725 (West 2000)). The trial court…”
Maldonado v. Creative Woodworking Concepts, Inc., 694 N.E.2d 1021 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). “DISCUSSION Plaintiffs contend that the court erred by dismissing their complaint because it alleged a breach of warranty action under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and that the applicable statute of limitations as provided in section 2-725(1) of the UCC (810 ILCS 5/2-725(1)…”
Newell v. Newell, 942 N.E.2d 776 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). “810 ILCS 5/2-725(2) (West 2006) (breach of warranty; discovery rule applies where warranty extends to future performance); Zielinski v.”
Zielinski v. Miller, 660 N.E.2d 1289 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996). “Knapp and Peoria Brick each filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to sections 2-615 (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 1992)) and 2-619(a)(5) (735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(5) (West 1992)) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Knapp's motion claimed that counts I through III failed to state a cause of…”
S.N.A. Nut Co. v. Haagen-Dazs Co. (In Re S.N.A. Nut Co.), 215 B.R. 1004 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1997).
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.