On March 23, 1993, Poli purchased a new 1992 Dodge Spirit manufactured by DaimlerChrysler Corporation. When he made the purchase Poli elected to obtain a seven-year, seventy-thousand-mile “powertrain” warranty from DaimlerChrysler. Over the next few years, the car required a series of repairs and replacements to the engine timing belt, which was one of the parts covered by the powertrain warranty. On December 16, 1993, after the car had been driven 16,408 miles, Poli had the timing belt replaced. More than three years later, on March 21, 1997, after the car had been driven 36,149 miles, the timing belt was repaired. Poli then had to replace the timing belt on May 16, 1997, on January 5, 1998, and on July 6, 1998. The timing belt again failed on July 31, 1998, causing the destruction of the “short block” of the engine which the dealer took six months to repair. All of the timing belt repairs and replacements were undertaken by the dealer in accordance with the sevenyear, seventy-thousand-mile powertrain warranty. On December 15, 1998, Poli brought an action against DaimlerChrysler for breach of warranty. The company moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the breach of warranty claim was barred by the four-year statute of limitations in the UCC because it was brought more than four years after the car had been purchased and that is when the breach occurred. Poli claimed that the breach of warranty claim was timely because the seven-year, seventy-thousand-mile powertrain warranty was a “guarantee of performance” which DaimlerChrysler breached by failing to properly repair the timing belt. Was Poli’s breach of warranty claim barred by the four-year statute of limitations?