Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): could have accrued was the point at which Minnesota Mutual required Parkhill to make out-of-pocket payments that were inconsistent with Russo’s alleged representations regarding the policy. See Klehr v. A.O. Smith Corp., 875 F.Supp. 1342, 1352-53 (D.Minn.1995) (stating that statutory claims of consumer fraud and deceptive trade practice accrue at the time of the alleged statutory violation), aff'd, 87 F.3d 231 (1996), aff'd, 521 U.S. 179, 117 S.Ct. 1984, 138 L.Ed.2d 373 (1997); Anderson v. Anderson, 293 Minn. 209, 197 N.W.2d 720, 726 (Minn.1972) (concluding that breach of fiduciary duty accrues when claimant becomes aware, or should become aware by reasonable diligence, of facts supporting the claim); Estate of Riedel v. Life Care Ret. Cmtys., 505 N.W.2d 78, 81 (Minn.Ct.App.1993) (<HOLDING>). Upon de novo review of the district court’s 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that trial court erred by dismissing breach of contract claim because appellee made promises to perform specific acts in contract the breach of which would give rise to a breach of contract action (B) recognizing that breach of contract cause of action accrues at time of the breach (C) recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract (D) holding party in breach could not maintain suit for breach of contract (E) holding immaterial breach did not constitute breach of contract
Output (English): holding that trial court erred by dismissing breach of contract claim because appellee made promises to perform specific acts in contract the breach of which would give rise to a breach of contract action