Opinion ID: 1995721
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Potterton Principle

Text: Potterton v. Ryland Group, Inc., 289 Md. 371, 424 A.2d 761 (1981) held that an express, unconditional promise by a home builder to the homeowner to repair certain defects removed the bar created by the statute of limitations to an action on an earlier version of that promise. This was a specific application of the principle that either an express unconditional promise to pay a subsisting debt, a conditional promise to pay such a debt if there is evidence to show that the condition has been performed, or an acknowledgment of such a debt from which a promise to pay may be implied, removes the bar created by the statute of limitations and revives the debt. [ Id. at 375, 424 A.2d at 763.] In the instant matter the Plaintiffs contend that Melba's May 6, 1980, letter operates under Potterton to remove any limitations bar insofar as repairing leaks and water damage is concerned. We have quoted from the Waterproofing section of that letter in Part I, supra. In that letter Melba also had refused to recognize any responsibility for other categories of alleged defects therein discussed and then said, We further feel that the warranty work which has been on going for quite some time extended far beyond our legal obligation. Thus, the May 6 letter is not the kind of unqualified acknowledgment of a legal obligation which falls within the Potterton principle.