The nature of the right sued upon and not the form of action nor the relief demanded determines the applicability of the statute of limitations.  So, in this case where plaintiff alleged that the seller’s disclosures regarding real property sold to plaintiff were inaccurate or incomplete, the action was governed by the 3-year limitations period for fraud even though the complaint also alleged a breach of contract claim–based on a promise to provide accurate disclosures.  Section 338(d) applies regardless of the form of the action a plaintiff chooses or legal theory she advances.  Plaintiff’s fraud claim accrued when she first suffered injury from the fraud by acquiring the property which had a lower market value than represented due to its undisclosed defects.  Accrual was not delayed until the property suffered damage from other events due to the undisclosed defects.  Also, plaintiff could not delay accrual for delayed discovery since the inspections and related information she receiveds before closing would have made a reasonable person suspicious.  A fraud claim will accrue even without actual knowledge if a plaintiff knows facts that should raise suspicion and trigger a further investigation.