Combe v Combe [1951]
Share
Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215 is a notable English contract law case concerning promissory estoppel. Mrs Radhika M Combe sought to enforce her ex-husband's promise of annual maintenance, invoking promissory estoppel after their divorce. Mr Yasser M Combe refused to honour the promise, leading to legal proceedings.
Mr and Mrs Combe, a divorced couple, had an agreement where Mr Combe promised to provide annual maintenance to Mrs Combe. Seven years later, Mrs Combe initiated legal action to enforce the promise, relying on promissory estoppel as there was no consideration for the promise.
At first instance, the court ruled in favour of Mrs Combe, enforcing the promise under promissory estoppel. On appeal, Denning LJ reversed the decision, emphasising that promissory estoppel could only be used as a defence, not as a cause of action.
Denning LJ referred to the Rule in High Trees, stating that once a promise is made and acted upon, the promisor cannot revert to the previous legal relations. However, he clarified that promissory estoppel acts as a shield and cannot be used as a sword to create a cause of action where none exists.
Denning LJ asserted that the High Trees principle should not be extended to eliminate the doctrine of consideration, emphasising its significance in contract formation. He argued that there was no consideration for Mr Combe's promise, as Mrs Combe's forbearance from suing him did not arise at his request and, even if it did, would not constitute valid consideration.
Denning LJ concluded that, in the absence of proof of a request by Mr Combe and considering the inability to waive statutory rights, there was no valid consideration for the promise of maintenance.
In essence, Combe v Combe clarified the limitations of promissory estoppel, emphasising its role as a defence and reaffirming the importance of consideration in contract law.
Mr and Mrs Combe, a divorced couple, had an agreement where Mr Combe promised to provide annual maintenance to Mrs Combe. Seven years later, Mrs Combe initiated legal action to enforce the promise, relying on promissory estoppel as there was no consideration for the promise.
At first instance, the court ruled in favour of Mrs Combe, enforcing the promise under promissory estoppel. On appeal, Denning LJ reversed the decision, emphasising that promissory estoppel could only be used as a defence, not as a cause of action.
Denning LJ referred to the Rule in High Trees, stating that once a promise is made and acted upon, the promisor cannot revert to the previous legal relations. However, he clarified that promissory estoppel acts as a shield and cannot be used as a sword to create a cause of action where none exists.
Denning LJ asserted that the High Trees principle should not be extended to eliminate the doctrine of consideration, emphasising its significance in contract formation. He argued that there was no consideration for Mr Combe's promise, as Mrs Combe's forbearance from suing him did not arise at his request and, even if it did, would not constitute valid consideration.
Denning LJ concluded that, in the absence of proof of a request by Mr Combe and considering the inability to waive statutory rights, there was no valid consideration for the promise of maintenance.
In essence, Combe v Combe clarified the limitations of promissory estoppel, emphasising its role as a defence and reaffirming the importance of consideration in contract law.
