Statute of limitations in contracts for sale
Source:
Section 72.7250 — Statute of limitations in contracts for sale, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors072.html
.
Notes of Decisions
An action to recover a surplus from the resale of an article upon an agreed foreclosure is not governed by this section. Chaney v. Fields Chev. Co., 264 Or 21, 503 P2d 1239 (1972)
This limitation period governs when plaintiff’s complaint alleges an action for personal injuries caused by breach of warranties implied in a contract for the sale of goods. Redfield v. Mead, Johnson & Co., 266 Or 273, 512 P2d 776 (1973)
A house is “improvement to real property” within meaning of ORS 12.135, and thus breach of warranty action with respect to sale of house is not governed by this section. Sponseller v. Meltebeke, 280 Or 361, 570 P2d 974 (1977)
Action seeking money, damages or property damage to helicopter that resulted when helicopter’s design gear collapsed allegedly due to design defect was not governed by this section. Bancorp Leasing and Financial Corp. v. Agusta Aviation Corp., 813 F2d 272 (1987)
Where account or account stated claim involves underlying sale of goods, 4-year limitation period of this section applies rather than 6-year period of ORS 12.080. Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. Hall, 113 Or App 30, 830 P2d 606 (1992), Sup Ct review denied
Implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose is not warranty that extends to future performance of goods. Permapost Products Co. v. Osmose, Inc., 200 Or App 699, 116 P3d 909 (2005)
Warranty extending to future performance is created by affirmation of fact, promise or description of goods that becomes part of basis for bargain, that explicitly extends to future performance and for which discovery of breach must await future performance. Hunter v. Woodburn Fertilizer, Inc., 208 Or App 242, 144 P3d 970 (2006), Sup Ct review denied
Law Review Citations
52 OLR 91-104 (1972); 28 WLR 565 (1992)