Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 600 / Act 236 of 1961

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5833

Accrual of claim; breach of warranty of quality or fitness.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961


Act 236 of 1961


600.5833 Accrual of claim; breach of warranty of quality or fitness.

Sec. 5833.

    In actions for damages based on breach of a warranty of quality or fitness the claim accrues at the time the breach of the warranty is discovered or reasonably should be discovered.

History: 1961, Act 236, Eff. Jan. 1, 1963

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1970–2024 · leading case: Neibarger v. Universal Coopertives, Inc.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Neibarger v. Universal Coopertives, Inc. (1992) mich · cites it 4× “5805(9) and MCL 600.5833; MSA 27A.5833. We disagree for the reasons stated above.”
Reiterman v. Westinghouse, Inc (1981) michctapp · cites it 6× “Plaintiff asserts, however, that since her claim alleges breach of warranty the accrual date established in MCL 600.5833; MSA 27A.5833 is controlling.”
Southgate Community School District v. West Side Construction Co. (1976) mich · cites it 4× “[8] MCLA 600.5833; MSA 27A.5833. See, also, Parish, supra, at 280-281 .”
Waldron v. Armstrong Rubber Co. (1975) michctapp · cites it 7× “On the other hand, MCLA 600.5833; MSA 27A.5833 provides that a claim based on breach of *634 warranty of quality or fitness accrues at the time that the breach of the warranty is discovered or reasonably should be discovered.”
Cartmell v. THE SLAVIK COMPANY (1976) michctapp · cites it 6× “MCLA 600.5833; MSA 27A.5833. Defendant contends that plaintiffs discovered the breach in 1960, that the cause of action accrued then, that the six years had thus run by the time this suit was commenced, and that the trial court should have directed a verdict in its favor.”
Bonney v. the Upjohn Company (1983) michctapp · cites it 2× “The Supreme Court has also applied the discovery rule in products liability cases based on a breach of warranty theory under MCL 600.5833; MSA 27A.5833, which expressly provides that an action based on breach of warranty accrues when the breach is discovered or reasonably should…”
Parish v. B F Goodrich Co. (1975) mich · cites it 3× “The fact that litigants, especially plaintiffs, want as a matter of tactics to employ all three theories is not at all decisive.”
Weeks v. Slavik Builders, Inc. (1970) mich · cites it 3× “For verification see the committee comment appearing under § 5833 (MCLA § 600.5833 [Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.”
Williams v. Polgar (1974) mich · cites it 2× “In those cases, MCLA 600.5833; MSA 27A.5833 provides that "the claim accrues at the time the breach of the warranty is discovered or reasonably should be discovered.”
H. Hirschfield Sons, Co. v. Colt Industries Operating Corp. (1981) michctapp · cites it 3× “In the absence of a specific warranty pertaining to future performance of the goods sold, a UCC cause of *724 action accrues when the breach occurs, regardless of the aggrieved party’s lack of knowledge of the breach.”
Ameron, Inc. v. Chemische Werke Huls AG (1991) mied · cites it 4× “Laws section 600.5833 tolls the accrual of the statute of limitations until the breach is discovered.”
Weeks v. Slavik Builders, Inc. (1970) michctapp · cites it 2× “Appellant’s third basis for alleging error in the denial of its motion for directed verdict is that the six-year statute of limitations for actions to recover damages for breach of contract which runs from the date the claim first accrues as provided in MCLA § 600.”
Show all 33 citing cases →
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.