DBSP, by comparison, never protected the near future results of the mortgages

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 verify „embod[ied] a contract distinctive from the fresh new bargain available roofing material,“ the fresh violation from which triggered the new law from restrictions anew (id. within 610). This is so since the defendant from inside the Bulova Watch „don’t just guarantee the updates otherwise efficiency of one’s products, however, offered to manage a service“ (id. at the 612). That solution is actually the fresh separate and you can distinctive line of promise to fix a great faulty rooftop-a serious part of new parties’ deal and you will „a unique, independent and additional extra to invest in“ the newest defendant’s equipment (id. on 611). Properly, new „agreements thinking about properties . . . was susceptible to a half dozen-year statute . . . running decades occasioned anytime a breach of the responsibility so you can repair the new fused rooftop took place“ (id.).

DBSP’s dump otherwise repurchase obligations are the fresh new Trust’s fix for an effective violation of them representations and you may guarantees, perhaps not a promise of one’s loans’ coming show

The fresh remedial condition into the Bulova See expressly protected future abilities from this new roof and undertook a promise to fix this new rooftop if the it did not satisfy the seller’s ensure. They [*7] illustrated and justified specific information about the latest loans’ features by , in the event the MLPA and you will PSA were carried out, and you can explicitly stated that men and women representations and you will guarantees did not endure the newest closing big date. Instead of the new independent be sure in the Bulova See, DBSP’s eliminate or repurchase obligation couldn’t relatively be viewed given that a definite hope Boligee loans away from coming abilities. It actually was dependent on, and even by-product regarding, DBSP’s representations and guarantees, and therefore did not endure the fresh new closing and you will was basically breached, if at all, thereon date. [FN3]

In reality, nothing on the offer specified your treat or repurchase responsibility do continue for the life of your financing

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