Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215 (CA)

Facts

  • The case involved a husband and wife undergoing divorce proceedings.
  • The husband promised to pay the wife £100 annually as a tax-free maintenance payment.
  • The promise was not supported by any formal consideration from the wife; she did not offer anything in return.
  • The husband did not request the wife to forbear from applying to the court for maintenance.
  • The wife, aware of the husband's financial situation, did not initially claim the promised payment.
  • Several years later, the wife brought legal action to claim arrears under the agreement.
  • The central issue was whether the husband was legally bound by his promise and if the wife could enforce the payment based on promissory estoppel.

Issues

  1. Whether promissory estoppel can create a new cause of action in the absence of consideration.
  2. Whether the wife's forbearance from applying to court for maintenance constituted valid consideration.
  3. Whether promissory estoppel could be invoked to enforce the husband's promise as a contractual obligation.

Decision

  • The court held that promissory estoppel cannot create a cause of action where no consideration exists.
  • The wife's forbearance did not amount to valid consideration because the husband did not expressly request it.
  • The husband's promise was unenforceable as a contractual claim due to the absence of consideration.
  • The doctrine of promissory estoppel could not be used by the wife as the basis for her claim; it is only available as a defence (a "shield," not a "sword").

Legal Principles

  • Promissory estoppel operates to prevent a party from asserting their strict legal rights only where it would be inequitable to do so, provided the other party has relied on the promise.
  • The doctrine cannot replace the requirement for consideration in contract formation.
  • Promissory estoppel serves only as a defence to stop a party from enforcing full legal rights, not as a means to create new rights or causes of action.
  • The necessity of consideration is a fundamental element of contract law and is not displaced by equitable principles.

Conclusion

Combe v Combe confirmed that promissory estoppel may only be used as a defence and cannot create a new cause of action in the absence of consideration, thereby reinforcing the essential requirement of consideration in contract formation and the limited function of the doctrine within English law.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal