K.S.A. § 84-2-725 (2026)
Statute of limitations in contracts for sale
84-2-725. 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 this act becomes effective.
History: L. 1965, ch. 564, § 121; January 1, 1966.
KANSAS COMMENT, 1996
1. This section introduces a uniform statute of limitations for sales contracts and takes these contracts out of the general statute of limitations of the state. Article 2 adopts a four-year period as most appropriate to modern business practice. Unlike other Kansas statutes dealing with contracts limitations periods (compare K.S.A. 60-511(1) (five-year statute of limitations for actions based on written contracts) with K.S.A. 60-512 (1) (three-year statute of limitations for actions based on oral contracts), this section does not distinguish between written and unwritten contracts. Subsection (1) permits the parties by agreement to reduce the limitation period to not less than one year. In cases within the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, K.S.A. 50-623 et seq., however, the prohibition against limiting remedies in implied warranty cases (K.S.A. 50-639(a)) may prohibit reducing the statute of limitations.
2. Subsection (2) states that a cause of action accrues when the breach occurs, regardless of whether the aggrieved party knows of the breach. In other words, the discovery rule does not apply in cases of latent defects. In the typical breach of warranty case, the cause of action accrues upon tender of delivery. See Atlas Indus., Inc. v. National Cash Register Co., 216 K. 213, 531 P.2d 41 (1975); Fordyce Concrete, Inc. v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 535 F. Supp. 118 (D. Kan. 1982). When the seller is to install the goods, the statute begins to run when installation is completed. Dowling v. Southwestern Porcelain, Inc., 237 K. 536, 701 P.2d 954 (1985). However, when a warranty explicitly extends to future performance, the cause of action accrues when the breach is or should have been discovered. This provision applies only to express warranties and not implied warranties. It is interpreted in Voth v. Chrysler Motor Corp., 218 K. 644, 545 P.2d 371 (1976).
3. Subsection (3) is a saving provision that is comparable in substance to K.S.A. 60-518. Subsection (4) makes clear that this section does not affect the law on tolling the limitation period. See, e.g., K.S.A. 60-520. Common law tolling doctrines, such as fraudulent concealment and estoppel, likely apply under this section as well. See, e.g., Zurn Constructors, Inc. v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 746 F. Supp. 1051 (D. Kan. 1990).
4. The most troublesome question under this section is how to apply the Article 2 limitations period in cases presenting both a breach of warranty claim and a strict liability tort claim. The confusion in the Kansas cases was discussed by Kansas Comment 1983 to this section. At present, federal courts in Kansas apply the tort statute of limitations (K.S.A. 60-513) to breach of warranty actions seeking damages for personal injury. See, e.g., Arnold v. Riddell, Inc., 853 F. Supp. 1488 (D. Kan. 1994); Winchester v. Lester's of Minnesota, Inc., 983 F.2d 992 (10th Cir. 1993) (applying Kansas law). The Kansas Supreme Court in Voth v. Chrysler Motor Corp., supra, took a better approach, applying the Article 2 statute of limitations to a breach of warranty action involving personal injury, and should be reaffirmed. A claim for breach of warranty, whether seeking recovery for personal injury or economic loss, should be subject to the statute of limitations contained in this section. A claim relying on a tort theory, even if brought together with a breach of warranty claim, should be subject to the tort statute of limitations. See Barkley Clark & Christopher Smith, The Law of Product Warranties § 11.05[1](Supp. 1996). Any change should be for the legislature to make, not the courts.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
The effect of statutes of limitation on implied warranty actions, Larry K. Meeker, 5 W.L.J. 62, 73 (1965).
1963-65 survey of law of contracts, Fred N. Six, 14 K.L.R. 209 (1965).
Commentary on Kansas law on statutes of limitation, 18 K.L.R. 441 (1970).
"The Bystander's Liberation Front—U.C.C. § 2-318 or Strict Liability," John B. Roesler, 19 K.L.R. 251, 253 (1971).
"Beefing Up Product Warranties: A New Dimension In Consumer Protection," Barkley Clark, Michael J. Davis, 23 K.L.R. 567, 573, 590, 603, 604, 611 (1975).
Strict liability in tort as adopted in Kansas, 25 K.L.R. 462, 469, 470, 472, 473, 474, 476 (1977).
Survey of contracts, UCCC and UCC, Franklin E. Lynch and Larry Schneider, 15 W.L.J. 324, 326 (1976).
Warranty violations in tripartite finance lease agreements, Winton A. Winter, Jr., 25 K.L.R. 573, 574 (1977).
"Survey of Kansas Law: Torts," William Edward Westerbeke, 27 K.L.R. 321, 351, 356 (1979).
"Comparative Fault and Strict Products Liability in Kansas: Reflections on the Distinction Between Initial Liability and Ultimate Loss Allocation," William Edward Westerbeke and Hal D. Meltzer, 28 K.L.R. 25, 96 (1979).
"Strict Liability in Tort: Is It Applicable to Design Defects?" Orvel B. Mason, 20 W.L.J. 600, 612 (1981).
"Housing Defects: Homeowner's Remedies—A Time for Legislative Action," William J. Fields, 21 W.L.J. 72, 82, 84 (1981).
"Equipment Leases Under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code," Charles D. Lee, 57 J.K.B.A. No. 1, 27, 28 (1988).
"Pitfalls on the Road to Salvation: The Kansas Saving Statute," Steven C. Day, 59 J.K.B.A. No. 8, 19, 22, 23 (1990).
"Time Limitations in the Kansas Products Liability Act: Harding v. K.C. Wall Products and Its Progeny," John T. Houston, 42 K.L.R. 481 (1994).
"Statutes of Limitation, Statutes of Repose and Continuing Duties under the Kansas Product Liability Act," Steve R. Fabert, 36 W.L.J. 367 (1997).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Cited in holding that prior law substantially in accordance therewith. Freeto Construction Co. v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 203 Kan. 741, 744, 748, 457 P.2d 1.
2. Action for damages for breach of warranty in sale of equipment governed by this section, not civil code; accrual. Atlas Industries, Inc. v. National Cash Register Co., 216 Kan. 213, 216, 221, 531 P.2d 41.
3. Subsection (2) construed; "explicitly" defined; alleged warranties did not explicitly extend to future performance; action barred. Voth v. Chrysler Motor Corporation, 218 Kan. 644, 645, 646, 647, 648, 649, 650, 651, 652, 545 P.2d 371.
4. Held inapplicable in diversity action; suit characterized as tort action and forum's statute applied. Forsyth v. Cessna Aircraft Company, 520 F.2d 608, 610.
5. Where defendant shipped air compressors into Kansas, use was here and any warranties breached here; appropriate relation to this state existed. Owens-Corning Fiberglas v. Sonic Dev. Corp., 546 F. Supp. 533, 540 (1982).
6. Cited; party may be equitably estopped from reliance on statute of limitations. Hustead v. Bendix Corp., 233 Kan. 870, 872, 666 P.2d 1175 (1983).
7. Where breach of implied warranty claimed in products liability suit, UCC limitation not applicable; action accrued at injury. Thomas v. Heinrich Equipment Corp., 563 F. Supp. 152, 155 (1983).
8. Where suit involves sale of goods rather than rental, four-year limitation applicable. Transamerica Oil Corp. v. Lynes, Inc., 723 F.2d 758, 762 (1983).
9. Where death, injury or property damage occurs as result of breach, two-year limitation of K.S.A. 60-513(b) applicable. Grey v. Bradford-White Corp., 581 F. Supp. 725, 728 (1984).
10. Where plaintiff purchased package deal on silo, tender of delivery made when installation completed. Dowling v. Southwestern Porcelain, Inc., 237 Kan. 536, 542, 544, 701 P.2d 954 (1985).
11. Where damage to teeth from ingesting tetracycline states tort-like claim, K.S.A. 60-513(a)(4) is proper statute of limitations. Cowan by Cowan v. Lederle Laboratories, 604 F. Supp. 438, 441 (1985).
12. Doctrines of fraudulent concealment and equitable estoppel available to toll statute of limitations for breach of contract for sale of goods. Zuru Constructors, Inc. v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 746 F. Supp. 1051, 1055 (1990).
13. Statute inapplicable to indemnity claim arising under implied agency relationship; not a breach of sales contract. Barbara Oil Co. v. Kansas Gas Supply Corp., 250 Kan. 438, 455, 456, 827 P.2d 24 (1992).
14. Parties may by agreement reduce period of limitation to not less than one year, but may not extend it. Vanier v. Ponsoldt, 251 Kan. 88, 109, 833 P.2d 949 (1992).
15. Breach of warranty damage claims considered contract rather than tort; four-year UCC statute of limitations applies. Winchester v. Lester's of Minnesota, Inc, 983 F.2d 992, 994, 995 (1992).
16. Statute of limitations for tort claims applied to tort claim of commercial code breach of warranty. Koch v. Shell Oil Co., 815 F. Supp. 1434, 1435, 1438 (1993).
17. Whether respondent tolled statute of limitations by acknowledging liability examined; equitable estoppel discussed. Memorial Hosp. v. Carrier Corp., 844 F. Supp. 712 (1994).
18. Whether KUCC statute of limitations applied to breach of warranty claim resulting in personal injury examined. Arnold v. Riddel, Inc., 853 F. Supp. 1488, 1492 (1994).
19. Breach of warranty claim where plaintiff seeks economic damages only governed by UCC statute of limitations. LIM Enterprises v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 912 F. Supp. 478, 479 (1996).
20. Breach of express warranty claim involving sale of goods governed by four-year statute of limitations. Pedro v. Armour Swift-Ekrich, 118 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1158 (2000).
21. Representations by manufacturer concerning product were specific enough to create express warranty for future performance. Full Faith Church of Love v. Hoover Treated Wood, 224 F. Supp. 2d 1285, 1292 (2002).
22. The four-year statute of limitations period for a breach of warranty for the sale of goods begins running when the goods are delivered or installed. Golden v. Den-Mat Corporation, 47 Kan. App. 2d 450, 276 P.3d 773 (2012).