Although parties may contractually agree to undertake a separate obligation, the breach of which does not arise until some future date, the repurchase obligation undertaken by DBSP does not fit this description. To support its contrary position, the Trust relies on our decision in Bulova Watch Co. v <**25>Celotex Corp. (46 NY2d 606 ), where we considered whether the separate repair clause in a contract for the sale of a roof constituted a future promise of performance, the breach of which created a cause of action. The separate clause the seller included in that contract was a “20-Year Guaranty Bond,” which “expressly guaranteed that [the seller] would ‘at its own expense make any repairs . . . that may become necessary to maintain said Roof’ ” (id. at 608-609).

We stored that the guarantee “embod[ied] a binding agreement different from the deal to provide roof content,” the brand new breach from which brought about the latest statute regarding restrictions anew (id. at 610). This is so due to the fact accused inside Bulova Watch “didn’t merely make sure the reputation or efficiency of one’s products, but agreed to create a help” (id. from the 612). One provider is actually this new separate and collection of pledge to fix a great defective rooftop-a significant element of the latest parties’ contract and you may “a different, independent and extra added bonus buying” the fresh new defendant’s tool (id. on 611). Properly, new “agreements contemplating properties . . . have been subject to a half dozen-12 months law . . . powering decades occasioned when a violation of one’s duty to fix the new bonded rooftop happened” (id.).

DBSP’s eradicate otherwise repurchase responsibility try the newest Trust’s fix for a beneficial breach ones representations and you can guarantees, maybe not a promise of your loans’ upcoming performance

The newest remedial term for the Bulova See expressly guaranteed future performance away from the rooftop and you will undertook a pledge to repair the fresh roof if it didn’t fulfill the seller’s make certain. It [*7] illustrated and you may rationalized certain details about this new loans’ attributes at the time of , if the MLPA and you will PSA were executed, and you will explicitly stated that those people representations and you can warranties don’t survive the closure big date. Rather than new separate be certain that within the Bulova Observe, DBSP’s beat otherwise repurchase duty cannot fairly be regarded as given that a distinct hope of coming results. It absolutely was influenced by, as well as derivative out-of, DBSP’s representations and you can guarantees, and therefore failed to survive the new closing and you will have been breached, whenever, thereon date. [FN3]

Actually, nothing regarding bargain specified the reduce or repurchase obligations do last for living of your own money

And it makes sense that DBSP, as sponsor and seller, would not guarantee future performance of the mortgage loans, which <**25>might default 10 or 20 years after issuance for reasons entirely unrelated to the sponsor’s representations and warranties. The sponsor merely warrants certain characteristics of the loans, and promises that if those warranties and representations are materially false, it will cure or repurchase the non-conforming loans within the same statutory period in which remedies for breach of contract (i.e., rescission and expectation damages) could have been sought. [FN4]

If the cure or repurchase obligation did not exist, the Trust’s only recourse would have been to bring an action against DBSP for breach of the representations and warranties. That action could only have been brought within six years of the date of contract execution. The cure or repurchase obligation is an alternative loans Dodge City remedy, or recourse, for the Trust, but the underlying act the Trust complains of is the same: the quality of the loans and their conformity with the representations and warranties. The Trust argues, in effect, that the cure or repurchase <**25>obligation transformed a standard breach of contract remedy, i.e. damages, into one that lasted for the life of the investment-decades past the statutory period. But nothing in the parties’ agreement evidences such an intent. Historically, we have been