Scribd
Upload
71 views2 pages

Combe v. Combe (1951)

In Combe v. Combe (1951), the court ruled that the wife's decision not to apply for maintenance was not sufficient consideration for the husband's promise to pay £100 a year, as it was not made at his request or in exchange for his promise. Additionally, promissory estoppel could not be used to enforce the promise, as it serves only as a defense and not a basis for initiating a claim. The agreement would also be void on public policy grounds, as it attempted to circumvent court jurisdiction in family law matters.

Uploaded by

tresnnatua
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
71 views2 pages

Combe v. Combe (1951)

In Combe v. Combe (1951), the court ruled that the wife's decision not to apply for maintenance was not sufficient consideration for the husband's promise to pay £100 a year, as it was not made at his request or in exchange for his promise. Additionally, promissory estoppel could not be used to enforce the promise, as it serves only as a defense and not a basis for initiating a claim. The agreement would also be void on public policy grounds, as it attempted to circumvent court jurisdiction in family law matters.

Uploaded by

tresnnatua
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

 CONSIDERATION: RULES GOVERNING CONSIDERATION

Combe v. Combe (1951)

(Rule 3: Examples of sufficient consideration: Forbearance)

FACTS OF THE CASE:

 The parties were a married couple undergoing divorce proceedings.


 The husband promised the wife £100 a year (tax-free) as a permanent maintenance
payment.
 The wife did not apply for a maintenance order from the court because of the
husband's promise, but this decision was made independently and not at the husband's
request or in exchange for his promise.
 The husband never made any payments, and the wife later sued for the arrears, either
on the basis of breach of contract or promissory estoppel.

LEGAL ISSUES:

1. Was the wife’s decision not to apply for maintenance sufficient consideration for the
husband’s promise to pay?
2. Could the wife rely on promissory estoppel to enforce the husband's promise?

DECISION OF THE COURT:

1) No Consideration for the Promise:

The wife’s decision not to apply for maintenance was not requested by the husband nor made
in exchange for his promise. Consideration must move at the request of the promisor or in
exchange for the promise. Since there was no request or bargain, her action did not constitute
consideration.

2) Promissory Estoppel as a Shield, Not a Sword:

Promissory estoppel could not be used as a basis for initiating a claim; it can only prevent a
party from enforcing strict legal rights if the promise was relied upon as a defense. In this
case, the wife was using estoppel as a "sword" to claim payment, which is not allowed.

3) Public Policy:
Even if there had been consideration, the agreement would be void because it sought to oust
the jurisdiction of the courts, which is against public policy in family law matters.

RELATION TO FORBEARANCE AS CONSIDERAITION:

This case emphasizes a critical requirement for forbearance to sue to be valid consideration:

 Mutuality and Request: The forbearance must be requested by the promisor as part
of a bargain or in exchange for their promise.
 Here, the wife’s decision not to apply for maintenance was not requested by the
husband. Therefore, her forbearance was unilateral and did not qualify as valid
consideration.

This aligns with cases like Miles v. New Zealand Alford Estate Co, which confirm that
forbearance only constitutes sufficient consideration if the party genuinely intended to bring a
claim and the forbearance was requested or agreed upon as part of the bargain.

You might also like