In the law student's case, the four-year-late promise to repay revives the debt. Which statement best describes this effect?

• A. It revives the debt by creating a new promise to pay.
• B. It does not affect the SOL.
• C. It extinguishes the debt.
• D. It creates a new contract requiring new consideration.

Answer: (A)

A fresh promise to pay a debt after the statute of limitations has run creates a new obligation, which restarts the limitations period and brings the debt back into enforceability. When the debtor makes this late promise, courts treat it as a new contract to pay the same amount, so the creditor can sue again as if the old claim hadn’t been time-barred. The debt isn’t extinguished by the lapse of time; it’s revived because a new promise creates a new contractual obligation with its own clock. Some cases also recognize that this revival can occur without requiring new consideration, since the crucial act is the creation of a new promise to pay. The other options don’t fit because they either ignore the effect on the statute of limitations, imply extinction, or misstate the need for new consideration.