Stilk v Myrick [1809]
Share
Stilk v Myrick [1809] EWHC KB J58 is a significant case in contract law that dealt with the issue of consideration. The judgment by Lord Ellenborough essentially established that fulfilling an existing contractual duty could not be seen as valid consideration for a new contract. This decision highlighted the principle that doing what one is already obligated to do under a contract does not provide new consideration for a fresh agreement.
Stilk was contracted to work on a ship owned by Myrick for £5 a month, with the obligation to do anything needed during the voyage, even in emergencies. When two crew members deserted during a stop at Cronstadt, the captain promised the remaining crew the wages of the two deserters if they fulfilled the duties of the missing crew members and their own. However, upon returning to the home port, the captain refused to pay the promised money.
Lord Ellenborough held that the agreement was void due to a lack of consideration. He emphasised that the crew had already undertaken, before sailing from London, to perform all necessary duties under all emergencies of the voyage. Therefore, their pre-existing duty to perform in all circumstances meant there was no additional consideration for the promise of extra pay.
Lord Ellenborough stated that if the crew had been at liberty to quit the vessel at Cronstadt or if the captain had capriciously discharged the two missing crew members, the case might have been different. However, he considered the desertion of part of the crew as an emergency of the voyage, and those who remained were bound by their original contract to exert themselves to ensure the safe completion of the voyage.
Lord Ellenborough's decision was partly based on the idea of public policy, aiming to prevent crew members from potentially blackmailing captains into giving them more money. The decision rested on the lack of consideration, and it was accepted that in modern times, with the doctrine of economic duress, the outcome might be different.
Stilk v Myrick was distinguished from subsequent cases like Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991], which introduced the "practical benefits" doctrine. This new doctrine allowed courts to find consideration even in situations where pre-existing contractual duties were involved, as long as practical benefits were conferred between the parties. The evolution of contract law, as seen in cases like Williams v Roffey Bros, reflects a departure from the strict stance taken in Stilk v Myrick and a recognition of the need for flexibility in contractual relationships.
Stilk was contracted to work on a ship owned by Myrick for £5 a month, with the obligation to do anything needed during the voyage, even in emergencies. When two crew members deserted during a stop at Cronstadt, the captain promised the remaining crew the wages of the two deserters if they fulfilled the duties of the missing crew members and their own. However, upon returning to the home port, the captain refused to pay the promised money.
Lord Ellenborough held that the agreement was void due to a lack of consideration. He emphasised that the crew had already undertaken, before sailing from London, to perform all necessary duties under all emergencies of the voyage. Therefore, their pre-existing duty to perform in all circumstances meant there was no additional consideration for the promise of extra pay.
Lord Ellenborough stated that if the crew had been at liberty to quit the vessel at Cronstadt or if the captain had capriciously discharged the two missing crew members, the case might have been different. However, he considered the desertion of part of the crew as an emergency of the voyage, and those who remained were bound by their original contract to exert themselves to ensure the safe completion of the voyage.
Lord Ellenborough's decision was partly based on the idea of public policy, aiming to prevent crew members from potentially blackmailing captains into giving them more money. The decision rested on the lack of consideration, and it was accepted that in modern times, with the doctrine of economic duress, the outcome might be different.
Stilk v Myrick was distinguished from subsequent cases like Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991], which introduced the "practical benefits" doctrine. This new doctrine allowed courts to find consideration even in situations where pre-existing contractual duties were involved, as long as practical benefits were conferred between the parties. The evolution of contract law, as seen in cases like Williams v Roffey Bros, reflects a departure from the strict stance taken in Stilk v Myrick and a recognition of the need for flexibility in contractual relationships.
