Contract Law - Seminar 11 Promissory Estoppel 2 - Requirements Combe v Combe [1915] 2 KB 215 . During divorce process - husband promised to pay his wife a tax-free sum of £100 per year to represent a permanent maintenance payment . The wife was aware that the husband wasn't in a good financial state and made no claim to this payment . Several years later, she brought an action to claim the arrears that were owed under their agreement . Court was required to consider whether the husband could withdraw from his earlier promise to pay the wife the sum of money . It was important for the court to understand whether the wife had given consideration in return for the husband's promise and whether the wife could claim for the sum of money that had been promised previously, despite the fact she hadn't claimed for the money for several years . Court held that the wife could only enforce her agreement for payment which was promised by the husband if she had given consideration . Court found that no consideration was given by the wife as she had not agreed to apply for the maintenance that was promised by the husband . The husband didn't request the wife to refrain from taking the maintenance payment and therefore the wife couldn't claim for the money WJ Alan & Co v El Nasr [1972] 2 All ER 127 · In 1967, a coffee selling business based in Kenya agreed to sell 500 tons of coffee to an Egyptian company based in Tanzania . The contract was based on the terms given by the London Coffee Trade Federation and therefore was governed by English law . The contract stated the price for the coffee in Kenyan shillings and the payment method would be by way of an irrevocable letter of credit . The buyers gave their payment with Pound Sterling as the currency and the sellers took part-payment for the shipment from this . Whilst the goods were in transit, the Pound Sterling became devalued and the sellers claimed for an additional sum to allow for this . The judge at first instance held that the buyers were liable to pay the additional sum · Buyers appealed this decision . Court had to consider whether the payment for the goods by the letter of credit in Pound Sterling could satisfy the value of the goods in the agreement. If not, the buyer would have to pay the remainder of the balance left outstanding as a result of their chosen currency being devalued . Court allowed the buyers appeal . Court held that the currency stated that in the contract between the parties was Kenyan shillings . However, the fact that the seller had accepted the part-payment by way of Pound Sterling had waived their right to be paid in the currency listed in the contract.
· On this basis - buyers had discharged their whole contractual obligation by handing the sellers