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.”

Johnson v. QFD, Inc., 807 N.W.2d 719 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “” MCL 440.2725(1). QFD asserted that because plaintiffs had waited more than one year after their purchase of the mobile home to file suit, their claims (including those alleging violations of the MHCA and seeking rescission) were barred by the shortened, one-year limitations…”

Masquat v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 2008 OK 67 (Okla. 2008). · cites it 2× “" Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2725 (1). Oklahoma's provision is identical except that Oklahoma substituted the word "five" for the word "four.”

Liparoto Constr., Inc v. Gen. Shale Brick, Inc, 772 N.W.2d 801 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “MCL 440.2725; Home Ins Co v Detroit Fire Extinguisher Co, Inc, 212 Mich App 522, 526-527 ; 538 NW2d 424 (1995).”

Citizens Ins. v. Osmose Wood Preserving, Inc., 585 N.W.2d 314 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “§ 440.2725; M.S.A. § 19.2725. Plaintiff appeals as of right from the court's subsequent order granting summary disposition to defendant pursuant to MCR 2.”

Naph-Sol Refining Co. v. Murphy Oil Corp., 550 F. Supp. 297 (W.D. Mich. 1982). · cites it 4× “§ 440.2725; M.S.A. § 19.-2725, the UCC section dealing with contracts for the sale of goods.”

Fisher Sand & Gravel Co. v. Neal A Sweebe, Inc., 810 N.W.2d 277 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 7× “” Defendant moved for summary disposition on the ground that plaintiffs action was barred by the four-year limitations period in § 2725 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), MCL 440.2725. Plaintiff contended that defendant’s obligation to pay an open account was an obligation…”

Southgate Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. West Side Constr. Co., 247 N.W.2d 884 (Mich. 1976). · cites it 2× “"(2) A cause of action accrues when the breach occurs, regardless of the aggrieved party's lack of knowledge of the breach.”

First of Am. Bank v. Thompson, 552 N.W.2d 516 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “The question is whether the applicable limitation period is four years as set forth in § 2-725 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), MCL 440.2725(1); MSA 19.2725(1), or she years as generally applicable to contract claims, MCL 600.”

H. Hirschfield Sons, Co. v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 309 N.W.2d 714 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 3× “On September 3, 1980, Bay County Circuit Court entered an opinion granting defendant Colt Industries Operating Corporation’s (hereinafter defendant) motion for accelerated judgment based upon the running of the four-year statute of limitations as provided in the Uniform…”

Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. v. Combustion Rsch. Corp., 662 N.W.2d 439 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “2 In response to the motions, plaintiffs insisted that the only claim they were pursuing against defendant was that defendant failed to properly inspect, discover, and disclose the hazardous installation of the heater during Thornton’s visit on December 2, 1994, emphasizing that…”

Kirby v. Chrysler Corp., 554 F. Supp. 743 (D. Maryland 1982). · cites it 2× “§ 2-725 (1975); Mich. Comp.Laws Ann. § 440.2725 (1967). Defendant contends that this action is not governed by the provisions of the U.”

Raker v. DEC Int'l, 553 N.W.2d 667 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 3× “Plaintiffs appeal as of right from an August 3, 1994, order of the Ingham Circuit Court granting defendants summary disposition on the basis that plaintiffs’ claim for breach of implied warranty of merchantability was untimely under the four-year period of limitation provided in…”

Neibarger v. Universal Cooperatives, Inc, 450 N.W.2d 88 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 3× “116(C)(7) to defendants on the basis of the running of the four-year period of limitations as provided in the Uniform Commercial Code, MCL 440.2725; MSA 19.2725. We affirm. i Plaintiffs, owners and operators of a dairy farm, contracted with defendant Charles Brinker to install a…”

Iverson Indus., Inc. v. Metal Mgmt. Ohio, Inc., 525 F. Supp. 2d 911 (E.D. Mich. 2007). · cites it 2× “See Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2725 (1) (“An action for breach of any contract for sale must be commenced within 4 years after the cause of action has accrued.”

Mahnick v. Bell Co., 662 N.W.2d 830 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “The trial court granted summary disposition to plaintiff on the basis that the contract was for the sale of goods and subject to the four-year statute of limitations provided by the Uniform Commercial Code, MCL 440.2725. This Court reversed, finding instead that the contract was…”

Home Ins. v. Detroit Fire Extinguisher Co., 538 N.W.2d 424 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs alleged negligence and gross negligence in the design, installation, inspection, and maintenance of the system; breach of contract for providing a system that failed to perform as intended; breach of contract for failing to detect and remedy defects; and other counts…”

Freeman v. Dec Int'l, Inc, 536 N.W.2d 815 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “This Court also rejected defendant’s argument that plaintiffs’ action was time-barred under the Uniform Commercial Code’s limitation period of four years from the delivery of goods, MCL 440.2725; MSA 19.2725. The panel ruled that plaintiffs’ action was not governed by the ucc…”

Frey Dairy v. AO Smith Harvestore Prods., Inc., 680 F. Supp. 253 (E.D. Mich. 1988). · cites it 2× “§ 440.2725], provides: (1) An action for breach of any contract for sale must be commenced within 4 years after the cause of action has accrued____ (2) A cause of action accrues when the breach occurs, regardless of the aggrieved party's lack of knowledge of the breach.”

Citizens Ins. Co. of Am. v. Proctor & Schwartz, Inc., 802 F. Supp. 133 (W.D. Mich. 1992). · cites it 2× “§ 440.2725 (emphasis added). First, with reference to subsection (1) above, defendant contends the parties did agree to reduce the period of limitation to one year.”

Ameron, Inc. v. Chemische Werke Huls AG, 760 F. Supp. 1234 (E.D. Mich. 1991). · cites it 4× “Mich.Comp.Laws § 440.2725. Plaintiff argues that Mich.”

Par. v. B F Goodrich Co., 235 N.W.2d 570 (Mich. 1975). · cites it 2× “” MCLA 440.2725; MSA 19.2725. 3 Of course the breach of warranty action under the code was not intended to be an exclusive remedy in personal injury cases where it is applicable.”

Huhtala v. Travelers Ins., 257 N.W.2d 640 (Mich. 1977). “5 MCLA 440.2725; MSA 19.2725. 6 "No person may bring or maintain any action to recover damages for injuries to persons or property unless, after the claim first accrued to himself or to someone through whom he claims, he commences the action within the periods of time prescribed…”

Dahlmann v. Sulcus Hosp. Tech., Corp., 63 F. Supp. 2d 772 (E.D. Mich. 1999). · cites it 5× “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2102 . The purchaser of defective goods may recover for economic loss and consequential damages provided the action to recover is brought within four years of tender of delivery of the goods, regardless of the time of discovery of the breach.”

Turner v. Ford Motor Co., 265 N.W.2d 400 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “NOTES [1] The only other arguably applicable period is the four-year limitations period in contract cases specified in Uniform Commercial Code § 2-725 (MCLA 440.2725; MSA 19.2725). This would apply, if at all, only to the breach of warranty claims.”

Suntogs of Miami, Inc. v. Burroughs Corp., 433 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). · cites it 2× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2725 (1970). [2] Suntogs has conceded that if the contractual limitations clause is given effect the contract claims were untimely filed.”

Detroit Bd. of Educ. v. Celotex Corp., 493 N.W.2d 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). “MCL 440.2725(2); MSA 19.2725(2). Because it is likely that most, if not all, of the asbestos-containing materials were purchased by plaintiffs more than four years before their action was brought, their claims would probably be barred under the ucc.”

Centennial Ins. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 253 N.W.2d 696 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). “MCLA 440.2725; MSA 19.2725. "(1) An action for breach of any contract for sale must be commenced within 4 years after the cause of action has accrued.”

State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Conair Corp., 833 F. Supp. 2d 713 (E.D. Mich. 2011). · cites it 4× “In support of this challenge, Defendant appeals principally to the economic loss doctrine, arguing that Plaintiffs claim is governed exclusively by Michigan’s enactment of the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”), and thus is time-barred by the UCC’s four-year statute of limitations,…”

Fries v. Holland Hitch Co., 162 N.W.2d 672 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968). · cites it 2×

Bacco Constr. Co. v. Am. Colloid Co., 384 N.W.2d 427 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).

Crossing at Eagle Pond, LLC v. Lubrizol Corp., 346 F. Supp. 3d 1048 (E.D. Mich. 2018). · cites it 2×

Parrish v. B F Goodrich Co., 207 N.W.2d 422 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 3×

Repub. Ins. v. Broan Mfg. Co., 960 F. Supp. 1247 (E.D. Mich. 1997). · cites it 2×

Higgins v. Lauritzen, 530 N.W.2d 171 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).

Sylla v. Massey-Ferguson Inc., 595 F. Supp. 590 (E.D. Mich. 1984). · cites it 2×

Die Casters Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 73 Fed. Cl. 174 (Fed. Cl. 2006).

Belville v. Ford Motor Co., 13 F. Supp. 3d 528 (S.D.W. Va 2014).

Boyd v. Toyobo Am., Inc. (In Re Second Chance Body Armor, Inc.), 417 B.R. 750 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2009). · cites it 2×

Frommert v. Bobson Constr. Co., 558 N.W.2d 239 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997).

Waldron v. Armstrong Rubber Co., 236 N.W.2d 722 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975).

Hanson v. Art Post Am., Inc., 269 N.W.2d 222 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2×

Pidcock v. Ewing, 371 F. Supp. 2d 870 (E.D. Mich. 2005).

Bennett v. Wright, 263 N.W.2d 17 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).

the Grosse Pointe Law Firm Pc v. Jaguar Land Rover North Am. (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 15×

Southgate Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. West Side Constr. Co., 18 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 132 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 6×

Hensley v. Colonial Dodge, Inc., 245 N.W.2d 142 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 2×

Waldron v. Armstrong Rubber Co., 220 N.W.2d 738 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974).

Michigan Mut. Ins. v. Osram Sylvania, Inc., 897 F. Supp. 992 (W.D. Mich. 1995).

William Coon v. Process Prototype Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 10×

Houghton v. Alfa-Laval, Inc, 459 N.W.2d 42 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990).

Liberty Ins. Corp. v. LSP Prods. Grp., Inc. (E.D. Mich. 2022). · cites it 4×

Bateson Farms & Co. v. Abbott's Landscape Nursery Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3×

State Farm Fire & Cas. v. Gen. Elec. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 3×

Brian McLain v. Richard Lobert (Mich. 2024). · cites it 3×

Roundhouse v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 405 F. Supp. 868 (W.D. Mich. 1975). · cites it 3×

Ditech Fin. LLC v. Robert Randazzo (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2×

Carhartt, Inc. v. Innovative Textiles, Inc. (E.D. Mich. 2020). · cites it 2×

Big Dutchman, Inc. v. Midwest Livestock Sys., Inc., 927 F. Supp. 2d 467 (W.D. Mich. 2013). · cites it 2×

Rene Marie Sturdavent v. William Sim Spencer (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).

Shearer v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc. (N.D. Ind. 2020).

Kiriacopoulos v. Gen. Motors LLC (E.D. Mich. 2023).

Braswell Egg Co., Inc. v. Poultry Mgmt. Sys., Inc. (E.D.N.C. 2020).

Mighty Good Solutions, LLC v. Universal GP Prods., LLC (E.D. Mich. 2025).

Fisher Sand & Gravel Co v. Neal a Sweebe Inc (Mich. 2012).

Comp-U-Aid, Inc. v. Berk-Tek, Inc., 547 N.W.2d 640 (Mich. 1995). · cites it 2×

Detroit Edison Co. v. NABCO, Inc., 872 F. Supp. 371 (E.D. Mich. 1992).

— 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). “” MCL 440.2725(1). QFD asserted that because plaintiffs had waited more than one year after their purchase of the mobile home to file suit, their claims (including those alleging violations of the MHCA and seeking rescission) were barred by the shortened, one-year limitations…”

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.”

First of Am. Bank v. Thompson, 552 N.W.2d 516 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). “The question is whether the applicable limitation period is four years as set forth in § 2-725 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), MCL 440.2725(1); MSA 19.2725(1), or she years as generally applicable to contract claims, MCL 600.”

Naph-Sol Refining Co. v. Murphy Oil Corp., 550 F. Supp. 297 (W.D. Mich. 1982). “§ 440.2725; M.S.A. § 19.-2725, the UCC section dealing with contracts for the sale of goods.”

Snyder v. Boston Whaler, Inc., 892 F. Supp. 955 (W.D. Mich. 1994). “Mich.Comp. Laws Ann. § 440.2725 (West 1967).”

Crossing at Eagle Pond, LLC v. Lubrizol Corp., 346 F. Supp. 3d 1048 (E.D. Mich. 2018).

Home Ins. v. Detroit Fire Extinguisher Co., 538 N.W.2d 424 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “Plaintiffs alleged negligence and gross negligence in the design, installation, inspection, and maintenance of the system; breach of contract for providing a system that failed to perform as intended; breach of contract for failing to detect and remedy defects; and other counts…”

Hanson v. Art Post Am., Inc., 269 N.W.2d 222 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).

Fisher Sand & Gravel Co. v. Neal A Sweebe, Inc., 810 N.W.2d 277 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “” Defendant moved for summary disposition on the ground that plaintiffs action was barred by the four-year limitations period in § 2725 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), MCL 440.2725. Plaintiff contended that defendant’s obligation to pay an open account was an obligation…”

William Coon v. Process Prototype Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).

Southgate Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. West Side Constr. Co., 18 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 132 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975).

Bateson Farms & Co. v. Abbott's Landscape Nursery Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).

Liberty Ins. Corp. v. LSP Prods. Grp., Inc. (E.D. Mich. 2022).

Big Dutchman, Inc. v. Midwest Livestock Sys., Inc., 927 F. Supp. 2d 467 (W.D. Mich. 2013).

Comp-U-Aid, Inc. v. Berk-Tek, Inc., 547 N.W.2d 640 (Mich. 1995).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2725(2) — 24 cases

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.”

Snyder v. Boston Whaler, Inc., 892 F. Supp. 955 (W.D. Mich. 1994). “Mich.Comp. Laws Ann. § 440.2725 (West 1967).”

Executone Bus. Sys. Corp. v. IPC Commc'ns, Inc., 442 N.W.2d 755 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). “” 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.”

Baker v. Dec Int'l, 580 N.W.2d 894 (Mich. 1998). “By the original agreement the parties may reduce the period of limitation to not less than 1 year but may not extend it.”

Kirby v. Chrysler Corp., 554 F. Supp. 743 (D. Maryland 1982). “§ 2-725 (1975); Mich. Comp.Laws Ann. § 440.2725 (1967). Defendant contends that this action is not governed by the provisions of the U.”

Par. v. B F Goodrich Co., 235 N.W.2d 570 (Mich. 1975). “” MCLA 440.2725; MSA 19.2725. 3 Of course the breach of warranty action under the code was not intended to be an exclusive remedy in personal injury cases where it is applicable.”

H. Hirschfield Sons, Co. v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 309 N.W.2d 714 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “On September 3, 1980, Bay County Circuit Court entered an opinion granting defendant Colt Industries Operating Corporation’s (hereinafter defendant) motion for accelerated judgment based upon the running of the four-year statute of limitations as provided in the Uniform…”

Neibarger v. Universal Cooperatives, Inc, 450 N.W.2d 88 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). “116(C)(7) to defendants on the basis of the running of the four-year period of limitations as provided in the Uniform Commercial Code, MCL 440.2725; MSA 19.2725. We affirm. i Plaintiffs, owners and operators of a dairy farm, contracted with defendant Charles Brinker to install a…”

Sylla v. Massey-Ferguson Inc., 595 F. Supp. 590 (E.D. Mich. 1984).

Dahlmann v. Sulcus Hosp. Tech., Corp., 63 F. Supp. 2d 772 (E.D. Mich. 1999). “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2102 . The purchaser of defective goods may recover for economic loss and consequential damages provided the action to recover is brought within four years of tender of delivery of the goods, regardless of the time of discovery of the breach.”

Hensley v. Colonial Dodge, Inc., 245 N.W.2d 142 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976).

the Grosse Pointe Law Firm Pc v. Jaguar Land Rover North Am. (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).

William Coon v. Process Prototype Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).

Brian McLain v. Richard Lobert (Mich. 2024).

State Farm Fire & Cas. v. Gen. Elec. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).

Liberty Ins. Corp. v. LSP Prods. Grp., Inc. (E.D. Mich. 2022).

Big Dutchman, Inc. v. Midwest Livestock Sys., Inc., 927 F. Supp. 2d 467 (W.D. Mich. 2013).

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.