Stilk v Myrick [1809] EWHC KB J58 (16th December 1809)

Sailors sought extra wages after two crew members deserted, with the captain promising to divide deserters' wages among remaining crew. The court held the agreement void for want of consideration, as sailors were already contractually bound to complete the voyage under all emergencies.

Facts

The plaintiff was a seaman on a voyage from London to the Baltic and back, contracted at £5 per month under the ship’s articles. During the voyage, two crew members deserted at Cronstadt. The captain, unable to find replacements, agreed with the remaining crew that they would receive the wages of the deserters divided among them if he could not procure replacement hands at Gottenburgh. No replacements were found, and the ship was worked back to London by the plaintiff and eight other original crew members. The plaintiff sued for the additional wages promised.

Issues

The principal issue was whether the plaintiff was entitled to wages at a higher rate than originally contracted, based on the agreement made at Cronstadt. The defendant argued that the agreement was contrary to public policy and void.

Judgment

Arguments for the Defendant

Garrow for the defendant argued that the agreement was contrary to public policy and utterly void. He relied on Harris v Watson, where Lord Kenyon held that sailors could not enforce promises of extra wages for performing more than ordinary duty, as this would enable sailors to extort concessions from captains under duress.

Arguments for the Plaintiff

The Attorney-General distinguished the case from Harris v Watson, arguing that the agreement was made on shore without danger or pressing emergency, and the captain was not under constraint. The mariners should not be deprived of compensation voluntarily offered for extra labour.

Lord Ellenborough’s Ruling

Lord Ellenborough held that the agreement was void for want of consideration. He stated that before sailing from London, the seamen had undertaken to do all they could under all emergencies of the voyage and had sold all their services until the voyage was completed. He noted that if the captain had capriciously discharged the two men, the situation would be different. However, the desertion of part of the crew was an emergency of the voyage, and those remaining were bound by their original contract to exert themselves to bring the ship safely to port.

Implications

This case established a fundamental principle in contract law regarding consideration. A promise to perform an existing contractual duty does not constitute valid consideration for a new promise. The decision clarified that where parties are already bound to perform certain obligations, a promise to pay more for that same performance is unenforceable. This principle has become a cornerstone of the doctrine of consideration in English contract law, frequently cited in cases involving modification of contracts and the requirement for fresh consideration.

Verdict: Verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff could only recover at the original rate of £5 per month, as the agreement for additional wages was void for want of consideration.

Source: Stilk v Myrick [1809] EWHC KB J58 (16th December 1809)