Combe vs Combe
(1951) 2 KB 215
Case Summary
[Promissory Estoppel]
Facts
Mr. and Mrs. Combe were a married couple who separated. The husband promised to pay his wife £100 annually as maintenance. Mrs. Combe did not initiate any legal proceedings for maintenance but relied on the husband's promise. However, he never made any payments. Mrs. Combe then sued him, arguing that his promise was enforceable under promissory estoppel.
Issues
1. Can the principle of promissory estoppel create a new cause of action where none existed before?
2. Is a promise enforceable if there is no consideration provided by the promisee?
Principle
The doctrine of promissory estoppel, as derived from previous case law (e.g., Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd), is a shield, not a sword. It can only prevent a party from returning to a promise where the promisee has relied upon it. Still, it cannot create a new contractual obligation without consideration.
Judgement
The court held that promissory estoppel does not create a new cause of action. The promise made by Mr. Combe was not enforceable because there was no consideration from Mrs. Combe. Lord Denning emphasized that promissory estoppel can only be used as a defence and not to enforce a promise where a contractual obligation does not exist.
Ishika Tanwar
Comentarios