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 held that make certain «embod[ied] a contract distinctive from the brand new package to supply roofing system product,» the brand new violation from which triggered the new law of limitations anew (id. in the 610). This was therefore since defendant when you look at the Bulova Observe «don’t only guarantee the updates otherwise results of merchandise, however, provided to would a support» (id. from the 612). You to definitely provider was the fresh new independent and you can type of hope to repair a beneficial bad roof-a significant component of this new parties’ offer and you may «an alternative, independent and extra extra to order» the newest defendant’s unit (id. at 611). Consequently, the new «arrangements contemplating characteristics . . . was indeed subject to a half dozen-year statute . . . running many years occasioned each time a breach of the obligation so you’re able to repair brand new bonded rooftop occurred» (id.).

DBSP’s lose or repurchase responsibility was the newest Trust’s treatment for a infraction ones representations and you will warranties, maybe not a promise of your loans’ upcoming results

Brand new remedial term when you look at the Bulova Watch expressly protected upcoming abilities from this new roof and undertook a promise to fix the fresh rooftop in the event that they don’t fulfill the seller’s be certain that. They [*7] portrayed and you can warranted particular information about the newest loans’ features since , when the MLPA and you may PSA were performed, and explicitly reported that those representations and you can warranties didn’t survive the new closure time. In place of the fresh new independent guarantee inside Bulova Observe, DBSP’s lose or repurchase responsibility couldn’t relatively be looked at given that a definite pledge off coming results. It had been dependent on, and indeed by-product of, DBSP’s representations payday loan Grayson Valley and you will guarantees, and that failed to endure this new closing and you may was in fact breached, if, thereon big date. [FN3]

Actually, absolutely nothing throughout the package specified that remove or repurchase obligation create continue for living of your 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 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