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 make sure “embod[ied] a binding agreement unlike brand new bargain available roofing product,” the newest violation at which triggered the law out of restrictions anew (id. on 610). This is very given that accused into the Bulova Watch “did not simply make sure the status otherwise show of the services and products, however, offered to perform a service” (id. on 612). You to definitely provider are the fresh independent and you can distinctive line of hope to fix an effective defective roof-a life threatening component of the new parties’ package and “a separate, separate and additional added bonus to get” the fresh new defendant’s product (id. within 611). Correctly, the “agreements thinking about official statement features . . . was basically susceptible to a half dozen-year law . . . powering age occasioned whenever a violation of responsibility so you’re able to repair new fused rooftop took place” (id.).

DBSP’s reduce or repurchase duty is the newest Trust’s remedy for an excellent violation of those representations and you will guarantees, perhaps not a hope of one’s loans’ coming show

Brand new corrective condition within the Bulova Check out expressly protected future abilities out of the brand new rooftop and undertook a promise to repair brand new roof if the it did not match the seller’s verify. It [*7] portrayed and you will justified certain details about the new loans’ attributes by , when the MLPA and you can PSA was indeed performed, and you may explicitly reported that men and women representations and you can guarantees failed to survive the brand new closure date. Instead of the separate verify in the Bulova Observe, DBSP’s eliminate or repurchase obligations couldn’t reasonably be regarded as just like the a definite guarantee regarding future performance. It absolutely was determined by, and indeed by-product off, DBSP’s representations and you can guarantees, which didn’t endure brand new closure and you will were breached, if at all, thereon date. [FN3]

Actually, nothing regarding deal specified your get rid of or repurchase obligations create last for the life of your own funds

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 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