California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Jack Heskett Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. Metcalf, 158 Cal.App.3d 38, 204 Cal.Rptr. 355 (Cal. App. 1984):
Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in ruling the statute of limitations ran prior to filing of the first amended complaint. According to plaintiff, the applicable limitations period is four years, found in Code of Civil Procedure section 337, subdivision (1), and California Uniform Commercial Code section 2725. Defendants, on the other hand, relying primarily on our decision in Stone v. James (1956) 142 Cal.App.2d 738,
Page 357
[158 Cal.App.3d 42] Stone v. James was an action to recover unearned finance charges from the seller for the latter's failure to refund such charges when the buyer paid off the balance due on an automobile sales contract prior to maturity of the contract.
(Stone v. James, supra, 142 Cal.App.2d, at p. 738, 299 P.2d 305.) Under then Civil Code section 2982, subdivision (e), the buyer in such a situation could seek a forfeiture of all payments made to the seller. (Id., at pp. 739-740, 299 P.2d 305.) Because the buyer's action sought to enforce a penalty or forfeiture, we held the claim was subject to the statute of limitations contained in Code of Civil Procedure section 340, subdivision (1). 2 (Id., at p. 740, 299 P.2d 305.) That statute provides for a one-year period within which to commence an action on a statute for a penalty or forfeiture. ( 340, subd. (1).)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.