Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215

Facts

• The case involved a husband and wife undergoing divorce proceedings.
• The husband promised to pay his wife an annual sum of £100, tax-free, as permanent maintenance.
• The promise was not supported by consideration; the wife did not provide any act or forbearance in exchange.
• The husband failed to make the payments, leading the wife to bring a claim to enforce the promise.
• The wife argued that the principle of promissory estoppel should bind the husband to his promise, despite the lack of consideration.
• The Court of Appeal rejected the wife’s claim, determining that promissory estoppel could not be used to create a cause of action where consideration was missing.

Issues

1. Whether promissory estoppel can operate as an independent cause of action in the absence of consideration.
2. Whether the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel can be invoked to enforce a promise that lacks consideration.
3. Whether a party can establish a contractual claim using promissory estoppel instead of fulfilling the requirements for contractual formation, specifically consideration.

Decision

• The Court of Appeal held that promissory estoppel cannot be used as a basis for a claim where consideration is absent.
• The court clarified that promissory estoppel is a defence preventing enforcement of strict legal rights in certain circumstances but cannot create new legal rights.
• It was affirmed that the doctrine of consideration remains essential for the enforceability of contracts.
• The wife's claim failed as there was no consideration for the husband's promise.
• The court emphasized the distinction between equitable modification of existing rights and the creation of new contractual rights.

Legal Principles

• Promissory estoppel acts as a shield (defence) and not a sword (cause of action).
• The doctrine of consideration is fundamental in contract law; a promise unsupported by consideration is generally unenforceable.
• Promissory estoppel does not remove the requirement for consideration in the creation of contractual obligations.
• Equitable principles may prevent strict enforcement of rights but do not establish new causes of action in contract law.
• Pre-existing contractual relationships are not required for estoppel to operate, but estoppel cannot substitute for the absence of consideration.

Conclusion

Combe v Combe established that promissory estoppel cannot be used as a basis for enforcing a promise where consideration is absent, reaffirming the necessity of consideration for contract formation and limiting promissory estoppel to the role of a defence rather than a means to create new legal rights.