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).

I held your guarantee “embod[ied] a contract not the same as the brand new contract to offer roofing system information,” new infraction from which brought about this new law from limits anew (id. from the 610). This was thus while the defendant when you look at the Bulova Check out “did not just make sure the standing or performance of the services and products, but offered to would an assistance” (id. at the 612). One services is the fresh new separate and collection of promise to fix a great defective rooftop-a life threatening element of the new parties’ package and you will “a special, independent and extra incentive to invest in” the new defendant’s tool (id. from the 611). Appropriately, the brand new “plans considering qualities . . . was indeed at the mercy of a half a dozen-12 months statute . . . running age occasioned when a breach of obligations in order to fix brand new fused rooftop happened” (id.).

DBSP’s eradicate or repurchase duty are the fresh Trust’s fix for an effective breach of those representations and you will guarantees, not a hope of your own loans’ future results

The fresh new corrective condition inside Bulova Check out explicitly secured future show from the fresh new roof and you may undertook a guarantee to fix the fresh new rooftop in the event the they don’t satisfy the seller’s make sure. It [*7] depicted and you will warranted specific information regarding the newest loans’ services by , in the event the MLPA and you will PSA were executed, and you may expressly stated that the individuals representations and warranties don’t endure the brand new closure big date. As opposed to the fresh independent be sure when you look at the Bulova See, DBSP’s dump otherwise repurchase obligation couldn’t reasonably be viewed as the a distinct hope off upcoming results. It actually was dependent on, and even derivative off, DBSP’s representations and you may warranties, and that don’t survive this new closure and you will was broken, if, on that big date. [FN3]

In fact, little regarding the offer specified that reduce otherwise repurchase obligation do continue for the life span of the 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 americash loans in Decatur, AL 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 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