Hartley v Ponsonby [1857]
Share
Hartley v Ponsonby [1857] 26 LJ QB 322 is an important judgment in English contract law that revisited the precedent set by Stilk v Myrick [1809]. The case dealt with the issue of consideration and whether contractual duties, when significantly altered, could be deemed valid consideration for a new contract.
Hartley was contracted to crew a ship owned by Ponsonby. After docking, seventeen of the thirty-six man crew deserted, leaving only six competent seamen. Given the unsafe conditions, the remaining crew agreed to continue the voyage with the promise of extra pay upon reaching the home port. However, Ponsonby refused to honour the promised extra wages upon arrival.
Lord Campbell CJ, in his judgment, distinguished the case from Stilk v Myrick. While Stilk v Myrick had held that sailors were not entitled to additional pay for fulfilling duties already required by an existing contract, Hartley v Ponsonby introduced a new perspective. The desertion of a significant number of crew members altered the nature of the remaining sailors' duties to the extent that the original contract could be considered discharged.
Lord Campbell concluded that the offer by Ponsonby to pay the crew for sailing back and the crew's acceptance could be regarded as an entirely new contract. The changed circumstances, with the desertion of a substantial portion of the crew, provided a valid basis for considering the new agreement as having proper consideration.
Hartley v Ponsonby represents a departure from the strict stance taken in Stilk v Myrick regarding the validity of contractual duties as consideration for a new contract. The case illustrates the court's recognition that significant changes in circumstances can render an existing contract discharged, allowing subsequent agreements with modified terms to be supported by valid consideration. This nuanced approach to consideration has had implications in shaping the evolution of contract law principles.
Hartley was contracted to crew a ship owned by Ponsonby. After docking, seventeen of the thirty-six man crew deserted, leaving only six competent seamen. Given the unsafe conditions, the remaining crew agreed to continue the voyage with the promise of extra pay upon reaching the home port. However, Ponsonby refused to honour the promised extra wages upon arrival.
Lord Campbell CJ, in his judgment, distinguished the case from Stilk v Myrick. While Stilk v Myrick had held that sailors were not entitled to additional pay for fulfilling duties already required by an existing contract, Hartley v Ponsonby introduced a new perspective. The desertion of a significant number of crew members altered the nature of the remaining sailors' duties to the extent that the original contract could be considered discharged.
Lord Campbell concluded that the offer by Ponsonby to pay the crew for sailing back and the crew's acceptance could be regarded as an entirely new contract. The changed circumstances, with the desertion of a substantial portion of the crew, provided a valid basis for considering the new agreement as having proper consideration.
Hartley v Ponsonby represents a departure from the strict stance taken in Stilk v Myrick regarding the validity of contractual duties as consideration for a new contract. The case illustrates the court's recognition that significant changes in circumstances can render an existing contract discharged, allowing subsequent agreements with modified terms to be supported by valid consideration. This nuanced approach to consideration has had implications in shaping the evolution of contract law principles.
