Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 440 / Act 174 of 1962
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2725 (2026)

Statute of limitations in contracts for sale; contractual reduction.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE


Act 174 of 1962


440.2725 Statute of limitations in contracts for sale; contractual reduction.

Sec. 2725.

    (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 1 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 warrant 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.

History: 1962, Act 174, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 80 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1968–2025 · leading case: Fisher Sand & Gravel Co. v. Neal a Sweebe, Inc., 81 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 239 (Mich. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fisher Sand & Gravel Co. v. Neal a Sweebe, Inc., 81 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 239 (Mich. 2013). · cites it 23× “on by Justice ZAHRA, joined by Chief Justice YOUNG and Justices CAVANAGH, KELLY, and MCCORMACK, the Supreme Court held: Because actions on an open account and actions on an account stated are distinct and independent from the underlying transactions giving rise to the antecedent…”
Grosse Pointe Law Firm, PC v. Jaguar Land Rover North Am., LLC, 894 N.W.2d 700 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 26× “2315, the MMWA refers to “written warranties” (full or limited) and “implied warranties,” 15 USC 2301(6) and (7) and 15 USC 2303.”
Neibarger v. Universal Coopertives, Inc., 486 N.W.2d 612 (Mich. 1992). · cites it 10× “Because proceedings in each case were not commenced within the four-year period provided by MCL 440.2725; MSA 19.2725, the actions are time-barred.”
Baker v. Dec Int'l, 580 N.W.2d 894 (Mich. 1998). · cites it 14× “By the original agreement the parties may reduce the period of limitation to not less than 1 year but may not extend it.”
Huron Tool & Eng'g Co. v. Precision Consulting Servs., Inc., 532 N.W.2d 541 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “116(C)(7), claiming that plaintiff’s claims were barred by the four-year statute of limitation in the Uniform Commercial Code, MCL 440.2725(1); MSA 19.2725(1). Plaintiff argued that its claim did not accrue until November 1988 at the earliest.”
Sherman v. Sea Ray Boats, Inc, 649 N.W.2d 783 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “Specifically, plaintiff argues that the breach of warranty *56 claim was extended, pursuant to MCL 440.2725, on the basis of language contained in the owner’s manual.”
Rokicsak v. Colony Marine Sales & Serv., Inc., 219 F. Supp. 2d 810 (E.D. Mich. 2002). · cites it 8× “§ 440.2725(1) 4 on May 24, 1998 when delivery of the boat was made and therefore, pursuant to the one year contractual statute of limitations permitted by § 440.”
Executone Bus. Sys. Corp. v. IPC Commc'ns, Inc., 442 N.W.2d 755 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 7× “” IPC’s motion was based on the fact that the four-year period of limitation under the Uniform Commercial Code, MCL 440.2725; MSA 19.2725, had expired. The lower court granted the motion and plaintiff filed for leave to appeal in this Court.”
Baranco v. Ford Motor Co., 294 F. Supp. 3d 950 (N.D. Cal. 2018). · cites it 2× “" Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2725 . He claims he did not discover the breach until he presented his vehicle to Ford's dealer a second time in February 2016 and was informed that the prior work performed under the warranty had not resolved the issue and further payments to repair the…”
Snyder v. Boston Whaler, Inc., 892 F. Supp. 955 (W.D. Mich. 1994). · cites it 6× “Mich.Comp. Laws Ann. § 440.2725 (West 1967).”
In Re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. Tires Prods., 155 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (S.D. Ind. 2001). · cites it 2× “The identical statute is found in Michigan, Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2725 (1), and Tennessee, Tenn.”
Zahler v. Star Steel Supply Co., 213 N.W.2d 269 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 8× “" (MCLA 440.2725; MSA 19.2725.) Plaintiffs first assert that the statute of limitations was tolled during the period defendants attempted to repair the units.”
Show all 80 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2725(1) — 20 cases
Fisher Sand & Gravel Co. v. Neal a Sweebe, Inc., 81 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 239 (Mich. 2013). “on by Justice ZAHRA, joined by Chief Justice YOUNG and Justices CAVANAGH, KELLY, and MCCORMACK, the Supreme Court held: Because actions on an open account and actions on an account stated are distinct and independent from the underlying transactions giving rise to the antecedent…”
Huron Tool & Eng'g Co. v. Precision Consulting Servs., Inc., 532 N.W.2d 541 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “116(C)(7), claiming that plaintiff’s claims were barred by the four-year statute of limitation in the Uniform Commercial Code, MCL 440.2725(1); MSA 19.2725(1). Plaintiff argued that its claim did not accrue until November 1988 at the earliest.”
Rokicsak v. Colony Marine Sales & Serv., Inc., 219 F. Supp. 2d 810 (E.D. Mich. 2002). “§ 440.2725(1) 4 on May 24, 1998 when delivery of the boat was made and therefore, pursuant to the one year contractual statute of limitations permitted by § 440.”
Johnson v. QFD, Inc., 807 N.W.2d 719 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
Grosse Pointe Law Firm, PC v. Jaguar Land Rover North Am., LLC, 894 N.W.2d 700 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “2315, the MMWA refers to “written warranties” (full or limited) and “implied warranties,” 15 USC 2301(6) and (7) and 15 USC 2303.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2725(2) — 24 cases
Grosse Pointe Law Firm, PC v. Jaguar Land Rover North Am., LLC, 894 N.W.2d 700 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “2315, the MMWA refers to “written warranties” (full or limited) and “implied warranties,” 15 USC 2301(6) and (7) and 15 USC 2303.”
Huron Tool & Eng'g Co. v. Precision Consulting Servs., Inc., 532 N.W.2d 541 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “116(C)(7), claiming that plaintiff’s claims were barred by the four-year statute of limitation in the Uniform Commercial Code, MCL 440.2725(1); MSA 19.2725(1). Plaintiff argued that its claim did not accrue until November 1988 at the earliest.”
Neibarger v. Universal Coopertives, Inc., 486 N.W.2d 612 (Mich. 1992). “Because proceedings in each case were not commenced within the four-year period provided by MCL 440.2725; MSA 19.2725, the actions are time-barred.”
In Re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. Tires Prods., 155 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (S.D. Ind. 2001). “The identical statute is found in Michigan, Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2725 (1), and Tennessee, Tenn.”
Rokicsak v. Colony Marine Sales & Serv., Inc., 219 F. Supp. 2d 810 (E.D. Mich. 2002). “§ 440.2725(1) 4 on May 24, 1998 when delivery of the boat was made and therefore, pursuant to the one year contractual statute of limitations permitted by § 440.”
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.