Opinion ID: 2365532
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Promise to cure.

Text: The Chalmers allege that the appellees made promises to cure and offers of settlement which would also serve to toll the statute of limitations. This court has said that an offer of settlement is admissible as relevant to the issue of fraudulent concealment of a cause of action otherwise barred by a statute of limitations. Lake v. Wright, 186 Ark. 227, 53 S.W.2d 233 (1932). In Lake , the appellant offered to pay the appellee a specific sum to settle a claim involving partnership earnings from 1922, but demanded a receipt for full payment of all claims and refused to allow the words for the year 1922 to be placed on the receipt. The appellee was unaware that he also had a claim against the appellant earnings in 1923 and 1924. However, the evidence submitted by the Chalmers does not demonstrate such conduct by the appellees. TMS wrote Chalmers in October 1989 in response to his letter and denied that the price differences were the result of an unfair pricing policy and stated that it could not undertake an investigation as requested in his letter. Chalmers further testified in his deposition that he met with GST representatives in May 1991, in an effort to resolve his problems and that GST's response was that they would let the judge handle it. Although Chalmers also testified that GST representatives told him in 1990 and 1991 that they would support the transfer of his dealership and do what it took to get him moved to the TMD region, these statements fall short of a promise to cure or an offer of settlement which would toll the statute of limitations.