Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 402.725 (2026)
Statute of limitations in contracts for sale
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
402.725(1)(1) An action for breach of any contract for sale must be commenced within 6 years after the cause of action has accrued. By the original agreement the parties, if they are merchants, may reduce the period of limitation to not less than one year. The period of limitation may not otherwise be varied by agreement.
402.725(2)(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.
402.725(3)(3) Where an action commenced within the time limited by sub. (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.
402.725(4)(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 chs. 401 to 409 or before ch. 410 or 411 became effective.
402.725 AnnotationA stringent standard applies in determining whether a warranty explicitly extends to future performance. There must be specific reference to a future time in the warranty, satisfied when a warranty guarantees a product for a particular number of years, or for a less precise, but still determinable, period. Selzer v. Brunsell Brothers, Ltd., 2002 WI App 232, 257 Wis. 2d 809, 652 N.W.2d 806, 01-2625.
402.725 AnnotationImplied warranties cannot, by their nature, explicitly extend to future performance. The statute of limitations will always start to run against claims based on implied warranty from the time when delivery of the goods is tendered. Selzer v. Brunsell Brothers, Ltd., 2002 WI App 232, 257 Wis. 2d 809, 652 N.W.2d 806, 01-2625.
402.725 AnnotationWhile all warranties in a general sense apply to the future performance of goods, the future performance exception in sub. (2) applies only when the warranty explicitly extends to future performance. Evidence that the goods break or physically deteriorate after delivery may be relevant to whether the goods were fit at the time of delivery for the ordinary purpose for which they are used; but consideration of that evidence for that purpose does not impose an express warranty for future performance. City of Stoughton v. Thomasson Lumber Co., 2004 WI App 6, 269 Wis. 2d 339, 675 N.W.2d 487, 02-2192.
402.725 AnnotationThe county was a “merchant” under s. 402.104 for purposes of the limitation under sub. (1). County of Milwaukee v. Northrop Data Systems, Inc., 602 F.2d 767 (1979).
402.725 AnnotationWisconsin law was applied despite a contrary choice of law provision in the contract. Office Supply Co. v. Basic/Four Corp., 538 F. Supp. 776 (1982).
402.725 AnnotationIn this case, both the new vehicle limited warranty, which was effective for four years or 50,000 miles, whichever came first, and the certified pre-owned warranty, which expired on August 11, 2016, or when the vehicle’s odometer reached 100,000 miles, whichever came first, extended to future performance under sub. (2). Accordingly, the causes of action associated with breach of those warranties accrued when the vehicle’s owner discovered or should have discovered the breach. Bryant v. BMW of North America LLC, 585 F. Supp. 3d 1178 (2022).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1982–2024 · leading case: Selzer v. Brunsell Bros., Ltd., 2002 WI App 232 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002).
Selzer v. Brunsell Bros., Ltd., 2002 WI App 232 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “" Wis. Stat. § 402.725 (1). 6 Generally, a warranty action *823 accrues at the time the warranty is breached; i.”
CLL Assocs. Ltd. P'ship v. Arrowhead Pac. Corp., 497 N.W.2d 115 (Wis. 1993). “[4] The majority errs in relying on sec. 402.725, Stats. 1989-90, for evidence of the legislature's intent to bar application of the discovery rule in this case.”
City of Stoughton v. Thomasson Lumber Co., 2004 WI App 6 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “" The City responds that Selzer is not applicable because it addressed an issue not present in this case: whether the exception in Wis. Stat. § 402.725 (2), governing the accrual of a cause of action when "a warranty explicitly extends to future performance of the goods,"…”
In re Hardieplank Fiber Cement Siding Litig., 284 F. Supp. 3d 918 (D. Me. 2018). “Summary of the Motion The Angelicis assert three claims against Hardie: Count 1: Breach of Express Warranty; Count 2: Unjust Enrichment; and Count 3: Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. D. Count 1: Breach of Express Warranty 1.”
State v. Simmelink, 2014 WI App 102 (Wis. Ct. App. 2014). “55 (lm) (requiring commencement of an action against a health care provider "within the later of: (a) Three years from the date of the injury, or (b) One year from the date the injury was discovered or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered," but…”
Off. Supply Co., Inc. v. Basic/Four Corp., 538 F. Supp. 776 (E.D. Wis. 1982). “(1) The Statute of Limitations UCC § 2-725 contains a four-year period of limitation governing actions for breach of a sales contract.”
Bailey v. Skipperliner Indus., Inc., 278 F. Supp. 2d 945 (N.D. Ind. 2003). “Indiana Law Governs the Statutes of Limitation for Plaintiffs’ Claims A major difference between Wisconsin and Indiana law, and perhaps the chief reason for Plaintiffs’ raising a conflicts issue, is the states’ divergent statutes of limitation on contract claims.”
Bryant v. BMW of North Am. LLC (E.D. Wis. 2022). “” Wis. Stat. §402.725 . “Thus, the normal rule is that a breach-of-warranty action must be commenced within six years after ‘tender of delivery’ of the product warranted.”
Ceme-Tube LLC v. Chroma Color Corp. (W.D. Wis. 2024). “3d at 626 (privity of contract required between the parties before liability can be founded on warranty claims).”
Southport Commons, LLC v. DOT, 2020 WI App 26 (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§§ 402.725(2), 411.506(2), 893.80(1p). But here the legislature chose the term “occurred” and not “discovered.”
RCBA Nutraceuticals LLC v. Proampac Holdings Inc (E.D. Wis. 2023). “” Wis. Stat. § 402.725 (2). Because the four-year statute of limitations began accruing, at the latest, sometime in 2018, RCBA’s claims for breach of implied warranties (counts I and II) are both time-barred.”
Sterling Prods. Inc v. Lucid Corp. (E.D. Wis. 2023). “§ 402.725 (1)). “‘Merchant’ as used in the [ Wis.”
— Wis. Stat. § 402.725(2) — 4 cases
CLL Assocs. Ltd. P'ship v. Arrowhead Pac. Corp., 497 N.W.2d 115 (Wis. 1993). “[4] The majority errs in relying on sec. 402.725, Stats. 1989-90, for evidence of the legislature's intent to bar application of the discovery rule in this case.”
Selzer v. Brunsell Bros., Ltd., 2002 WI App 232 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “" Wis. Stat. § 402.725 (1). 6 Generally, a warranty action *823 accrues at the time the warranty is breached; i.”
City of Stoughton v. Thomasson Lumber Co., 2004 WI App 6 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “" The City responds that Selzer is not applicable because it addressed an issue not present in this case: whether the exception in Wis. Stat. § 402.725 (2), governing the accrual of a cause of action when "a warranty explicitly extends to future performance of the goods,"…”
Southport Commons, LLC v. DOT, 2020 WI App 26 (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§§ 402.725(2), 411.506(2), 893.80(1p). But here the legislature chose the term “occurred” and not “discovered.”
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.