Consideration & Misrepresentation Brief Notes

By : WY&DL

Combe v Combe (1951)

1) A married couple was getting divorced

2) The husband promised to pay the his ex wife, $100/year

3) Wife didn't file for a maintenance order and relied on his promise

4) Husband didn't keep his promise

5) After 6 years, the wife sued for arrears (debt)



Plaintiff : Sued and said she provided consideration for her husband's promise by not filing a court order but courts held she did not provide consideration.
CA Held : Promise unenforceable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A) Husband did not have to pay because
            1) He did not ask her to file a maintenance order
            2) He did not intend to forbear her from filing a maintenance order.
            3) Promissory Estoppel can only be used as a shield, not a sword.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q : Why did the courts refused to imply that the husband asked the wife to file a maintenance order ?
Because the 'justice of the case' did not require that it should be implied.
1) The wife had delayed her claim for 6 years
2) The wife had a higher income than her husband.

Note:    Forbearing to do an act would usually be enough to be consideration.

            In this case, forbearance was not sufficient consideration.



Contrast with Alliance Bank v Broom (1864)