Alan & Co Ltd v El Nasr Export & Import Co [1972] 2 WLR 800
SALE OF GOODS – LETTER OF INTENT – LETTER OF CREDIT – PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
Facts
This case concerns the sale of coffee beans between a Kenyan coffee business (A) and a Tanzanian based buyer (El Nasr), who then resold the product. The contracts (two) between the two parties were made for 250 tonnes of coffee beans, sold at 262 Kenyan shillings per cwt. The amounts were made payable on credit, the agreement of which was set up using amounts in sterling. This is the key discrepancy between the contract for sale and the credit agreement – however the other discrepancies were addressed prior to any exchange. The first shipment was accepted by El Nasr, who paid for this instalment in pounds sterling. When payment became due on the second instalment, the value of sterling had decreased. To avoid a loss A demanded payment in Kenyan Shillings, meaning that the sterling balance needed increasing/the balance was owing.
Issue
Could the buyers rely on promissory estoppel, based on the original acceptance of the first payment in sterling and the lack of redress about the inclusion of sterling during the addressing of other issues?
Decision/Outcome
- A requirement of promissory estoppel is that the promisee‘s conduct has been influenced by the promise or representation.
- To rely on promissory estoppel, detrimental reliance is not a key requirement. You must only establish that the promisor has changed their position.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Alan (W J) & Co Ltd v El Nasr Export and Import Co [1972] 2 QB 189 (also reported at [1972] 2 WLR 800). The principles stated remain good law. The Court of Appeal held that promissory estoppel could be established without proof of detriment, provided the promisee had altered their position in reliance on the representation or promise. This approach is consistent with the broader doctrine as developed from Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130 and affirmed in subsequent case law.
One point worth noting for students: the article’s statement that detrimental reliance is not required should be read carefully alongside later authorities. The question of whether some form of reliance-based detriment or change of position is required remains a debated area. Lord Denning MR’s approach in this case, favouring a broad view that mere change of position suffices, has not been universally adopted without qualification, and students should consider the position alongside cases such as Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215 and academic commentary when writing on this topic. No subsequent statutory change affects the common law doctrine of promissory estoppel as discussed here.
