CO Code § 4-2-725 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 4 - Uniform Commercial Code|Article 2 - Sales|Part 7 - Remedies|§ 4-2-725. Statute of Limitations in Contracts for Sale

  An action for breach of any contract for sale must be commenced within the time period prescribed in section 13-80-101, C.R.S. This period of limitation may not be varied by agreement of the parties.    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.    Where an action commenced within the time limited by subsection (1) of this section 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 six months after the termination of the first action unless the termination resulted from voluntary discontinuance or from dismissal for failure or neglect to prosecute.    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 title becomes effective.     History. Source: L. 65: P. 1344, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 155-2-725. L. 86: (1) amended, p. 702, § 5, effective July 1. History. Source: L. 65: P. 1344, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 155-2-725. L. 86: (1) amended, p. 702, § 5, effective July 1.    Editor's note - Colorado legislative change: In subsection (1), Colorado substituted the three-year statute of limitations in § 13-80-101 for the four-year statute of limitations in the uniform act. The official text also provided that the parties could reduce the period of limitation to a minimum of one year, but they could not extend the period. Colorado has provided that the period of limitation may not be reduced or extended.   OFFICIAL COMMENT   Prior Uniform Statutory Provision: None.   Purposes: To introduce a uniform statute of limitations for sales contracts, thus eliminating the jurisdictional variations and providing needed relief for concerns doing business on a nationwide scale whose contracts have heretofore been governed by several different periods of limitation depending upon the state in which the transaction occurred. This Article takes sales contracts out of the general laws limiting the time for commencing contractual actions and selects a four year period as the most appropriate to modern business practice. This is within the normal commercial record keeping period.   Subsection (1) permits the parties to reduce the period of limitation. The minimum period is set at one year. The parties may not, however, extend the statutory period.   Subsection (2), providing that the cause of action accrues when the breach occurs, states an exception where the warranty extends to future performance.   Subsection (3) states the saving provision included in many state statutes and permits an additional short period for bringing new actions, where suits begun within the four year period have been terminated so as to leave a remedy still available for the same breach.   Subsection (4) makes it clear that this Article does not purport to alter or modify in any respect the law on tolling of the Statute of Limitations as it now prevails in the various jurisdictions.   Definitional Cross References:   “Action”. Section 4-1-201 .   “Aggrieved party”. Section 4-1-201 .   “Agreement”. Section 4-1-201 .   “Contract for sale”. Section 4-2-106 .   “Goods”. Section 4-2-105 .   “Party”. Section 4-1-201 .   “Remedy”. Section 4-1-201 .   “Term”. Section 4-1-201 .   “Termination”. Section 4-2-106 .   ANNOTATION   Subsection (1) prohibits shortening of limitation period. Avedon Eng'g, Inc. v. Seatex, 112 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (D. Colo. 2000 ).   Whether arbitration is an “action” subject to limitation period does not control the outcome, if a unilateral term shortening limitation period to one year creates surprise and hardship. Avedon Eng'g, Inc. v. Seatex, 112 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (D. Colo. 2000 ).   Running of statute of limitations for breach of express warranty. In an explicit warranty of a roof for five years the statute begins to run, not when the first leak is discovered, but when the party discovered or should have discovered that the roofer was unable or unwilling to maintain the roof as warranted. Smith v. Union Supply Co., 675 P.2d 333 (Colo. App. 1983).   Breach defined. When performance of a duty under a contract is due, any non-performance is a breach. D.O.M. Farms v. Nakamoto, 718 P.2d 262 (Colo. App. 1986).   Claims for breach of warranty governed by this section and not former § 13-80-127.5 since such claims are causes of action based upon contract. Ayala v. Joy Mfg. Co., 580 F. Supp. 521 (D. Colo. 1984 ).   Actions or claims for breach of express and implied warranties under the UCC are governed by this section and not former § 13-80-127.5 . Wieser v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 596 F. Supp. 1473 (D. Colo. 1984 ).   Persons not parties to the sale are still subject to the limitations period of this section. Wieser v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 596 F. Supp. 1473 (D. Colo. 1984 ); Anderson v. Deere & Co., 622 F. Supp. 290 (D. Colo. 1985 ).   For the future performance exception of statute to apply, there must be a warranty that explicitly extends to future performance of the goods. Smith v. Union Supply Co., 675 P.2d 333 (Colo. App. 1983); Boyd v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Prods., 776 P.2d 1125 (Colo. App. 1989).   Warranty did not extend to future performance of goods and buyer's cause of action accrued when tender of delivery was made where manufacturer, by provisions of sale contract, did not explicitly promise that the product would not malfunction, only that, if it did, it would be repaired or replaced. Boyd v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Prods., 776 P.2d 1125 (Colo. App. 1989).   Actions of seller toll statute of limitations. Where a seller delivered a good, made repeated assurances that the product would be repaired to meet contract performance requirements and made efforts to improve the product, those promises and efforts tolled the statute of limitations in subsection (1) until the seller denied liability and refused to make further efforts to improve the product. Colorado-Ute Elec. Ass'n v. Envirotech Corp., 524 F. Supp. 1152 (D. Colo. 1981 ).   Where seller guaranteed buyer that product would perform at a certain level of reliability for successive intervals until a specified time, this guarantee effectively delayed commencement of the limitations period for seeking a “true fix” remedy until that time. Curragh Queensland Mining v. Dresser Indus., 55 P.3d 235 (Colo. App. 2002).   Because this section contains no specific tolling provision and does not otherwise indicate to the contrary, the general tolling provisions of § 13-81-103 apply. Haberkorn by Haberkorn v. ROHM-GMBH, 709 P.2d 44 (Colo. App. 1985).   Applied in Glen Peck, Ltd. v. Fritsche, 651 P.2d 414 (Colo. App. 1981); Hawkinson v. A.H. Robins, Co., Inc., 595 F. Supp. 1290 (D. Colo. 1984 ); Richard O'Brien Companies v. Challenge-Cook Bros., 672 F. Supp. 466 (D. Colo. 1987 ).