Stilk v Myrick
Encyclopedia
Stilk v Myrick [1809] EWHC KB J58 is an English contract law
case of the High Court
on the subject of consideration
. In his verdict, the judge, Lord Ellenborough
decided that in cases where an individual was bound to do a duty under an existing contract, that duty could not be considered valid consideration for a new contract. It has been almost wholly reversed by Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd
, and replaced by the doctrine of economic duress.
The defense, represented by Garrow, argued that the agreement between the captain and the sailors
The lawyers for the plaintiff attempted to distinguish this case from Harris v Watson by pointing out that the circumstances were completely different, and that the captain had offered the extra money without any pressure being brought to bear by the crewmen.
it was held that where a remaining crew were required to do something extra, beyond the scope of their contracts (which unlike in Stilk did not require performance in all emergencies) that the promise of extra pay could be enforced. Another exception to the rule that performing a pre-existing contractual duty is not valid consideration for a new agreement was created in Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd
[1991] 1 QB 1 which decided that in such situations the court will be quick to find consideration, if "practical benefits" are given from one to another party.
English contract law
English contract law is a body of law regulating contracts in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the industrial revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth , and the United States...
case of the High Court
High Court of Justice
The High Court of Justice is, together with the Court of Appeal and the Crown Court, one of the Senior Courts of England and Wales...
on the subject of consideration
Consideration under English law
Consideration in English law is one of the three main building blocks of a contract. Consideration can be anything of value , which each party to a legally binding contract must agree to exchange if the contract is to be valid. If only one party offers consideration, the agreement is not legally a...
. In his verdict, the judge, Lord Ellenborough
Edward Law, 1st Baron Ellenborough
Edward Law, 1st Baron Ellenborough PC KC was an English judge. After serving as a Member of Parliament and Attorney General, he became Lord Chief Justice.-Early life:...
decided that in cases where an individual was bound to do a duty under an existing contract, that duty could not be considered valid consideration for a new contract. It has been almost wholly reversed by Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd
Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd
Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls Ltd [1989] is a leading English contract law case, which decided that in varying a contract, the court will be quick to find consideration, if "factual benefits" are given from one to another party.-Facts:...
, and replaced by the doctrine of economic duress.
Facts
Stilk was contracted to work on a ship owned by Myrick for £5 a month, promising to do anything needed in the voyage regardless of emergencies. After the ship docked at Cronstadt two men deserted, and after failing to find replacements the captain promised the crew the wages of those two men divided between them if they fulfilled the duties of the missing crewmen as well as their own. After arriving at their home port the captain refused to pay the crew the money he had promised to them.The defense, represented by Garrow, argued that the agreement between the captain and the sailors
was contrary to public policy, and utterly void. In West IndiaWest IndiaWest India or the Western region of India consists of the states of Goa, Gujarat and Maharashtra, along with the Union Territories of Daman and Diu and Dadra and Nagar Haveli. It is highly industrialized, with a large urban population. Most of Western India was part of the Maratha Empire before...
voyages, crews are often thinned greatly by death and desertion; and if a promise of advanced wages were valid, exorbitant claims would be set up on all such occasions. This ground was strongly taken by Lord Kenyon in Harris v WatsonHarris v WatsonHarris v. Watson was a 1791 case regarding sailors' wages.The plaintiff was a seaman on board the ship Alexander, of which the defendant was master and commander...
, Peak. Cas. 72, where that learned Judge held, that no action would lie at the suit of a sailor on a promise of a captain to pay him extra wages, in consideration of his doing more than the ordinary share of duty in navigating the ship; and his Lordship said, that if such a promise could be enforced, sailors would in many cases suffer a ship to sink unless the captain would accede to any extravagant demand they might think proper to make.
The lawyers for the plaintiff attempted to distinguish this case from Harris v Watson by pointing out that the circumstances were completely different, and that the captain had offered the extra money without any pressure being brought to bear by the crewmen.
Judgment
Lord Ellenborough's judgment read:Significance
Modern commentators say that the decision by the judge not to award the money to the plaintiffs was based at least partly on public policy; should he have done so it would have created precedent that would risk crew members blackmailing captains into giving them more money. It is accepted that the decision would likely be different if it was made in modern times, because of the doctrine of economic duress it would be difficult for such blackmail to be enforced in court. In Hartley v PonsonbyHartley v Ponsonby
Hartley v Ponsonby [1857] 26 LJ QB 322 is a leading judgment on the subject of consideration in English contract law. The judgment constituted an amendment to the precedent set by Stilk v Myrick that allowed contractual duties to be considered valid consideration for a future contract if the duties...
it was held that where a remaining crew were required to do something extra, beyond the scope of their contracts (which unlike in Stilk did not require performance in all emergencies) that the promise of extra pay could be enforced. Another exception to the rule that performing a pre-existing contractual duty is not valid consideration for a new agreement was created in Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd
Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd
Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls Ltd [1989] is a leading English contract law case, which decided that in varying a contract, the court will be quick to find consideration, if "factual benefits" are given from one to another party.-Facts:...
[1991] 1 QB 1 which decided that in such situations the court will be quick to find consideration, if "practical benefits" are given from one to another party.