Stilk v Myrick

Last updated

Stilk v Myrick
Dzhigit1874-1904Kronshtadt.jpg
Court Court of King's Bench
Decided16 December 1809
Citation(s)[1809] EWHC KB J58, 170 ER 1168
Transcript(s) Full text of judgment
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Lord Ellenborough
Keywords
Consideration

Stilk v Myrick [1809] EWHC KB J58 is an English contract law case heard in the King's Bench 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 distinguished from Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd , [1] which suggested that situations formerly handled by consideration could instead be handled by the doctrine of economic duress.

Contents

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. [2] 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. [2]

The defence, represented by Garrow, argued that the agreement between the captain and the sailors or seamen

was contrary to public policy, and utterly void. In West India 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 Watson , 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. [3]

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. [3]

Judgment

Lord Ellenborough's judgment read:

I think Harris v Watson was rightly decided; but I doubt whether the ground of public policy, upon which Lord Kenyon is stated to have proceeded, be the true principle on which the decision is to be supported. Here, I say, the agreement is void for want of consideration. There was no consideration for the ulterior pay promised to the mariners who remained with the ship. Before they sailed from London they had undertaken to do all that they could under all the emergencies of the voyage. They had sold all their services till the voyage should be completed. If they had been at liberty to quit the vessel at Cronstadt, the case would have been quite different; or if the captain had capriciously discharged the two men who were wanting, the others might not have been compellable to take the whole duty upon themselves, and their agreeing to do so might have been a sufficient consideration for the promise of an advance of wages. But the desertion of a part of the crew is to be considered an emergency of the voyage as much as their death; and those who remain are bound by the terms of their original contract to exert themselves to the utmost to bring the ship in safety to her destined port. Therefore, without looking to the policy of this agreement, I think it is void for want of consideration, and that the plaintiff can only recover at the rate of £5 a month. [3]

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. [2] 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. [4] In Hartley v Ponsonby [5] 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. [6] 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. [7] The practical benefit doctrine has recently been extended to a lease agreement which involved the payer of a lesser sum in MWB v Rock Advertising [2016] EWCA Civ 553 which has led to considerable criticism. [8]

See also

Related Research Articles

<i>Quantum meruit</i>

Quantum meruit is a Latin phrase meaning "what one has earned". In the context of contract law, it means something along the lines of "reasonable value of services".

Consideration is an English common law concept within the law of contract, and is a necessity for simple contracts. The concept of consideration has been adopted by other common law jurisdictions, including the US.

The pre-existing duty rule is an aspect of consideration within the law of contract. Originating in England the concept of consideration has been adopted by other jurisdictions, including the US.

Consideration Concept of legal value in connection with contracts

Consideration is a concept of English common law and is a necessity for simple contracts but not for special contracts. The concept has been adopted by other common law jurisdictions.

English contract law Law of contracts in England and Wales

English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements 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, from membership in the European Union, continuing membership in Unidroit, and to a lesser extent the United States. Any agreement that is enforceable in court is a contract. A contract is a voluntary obligation, contrasting to the duty to not violate others rights in tort or unjust enrichment. English law places a high value on ensuring people have truly consented to the deals that bind them in court, so long as they comply with statutory and human rights.

Contract Legally binding document establishing rights and duties between parties

A contract is a legally enforceable agreement that creates, defines, and governs mutual rights and obligations among its parties. A contract typically involves the transfer of goods, services, money, or a promise to transfer any of those at a future date. In the event of a breach of contract, the injured party may seek judicial remedies such as damages or rescission. Contract law, the field of the law of obligations concerned with contracts, is based on the principle that agreements must be honoured.

Indian Contract Act, 1872 Contract Act

The Indian Contract Act, 1872 prescribes the law relating to contracts in India and is the key act regulating Indian contract law. The Act is based on the principles of English Common Law. It is applicable to all the states of India. It determines the circumstances in which promises made by the parties to a contract shall be legally binding. Under Section 2(h), the Indian Contract Act defines a contract as an agreement which is enforceable by law.

<i>Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd</i>

Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd[1989] EWCA Civ 5 is a leading English contract law case. It decided that in varying a contract, a promise to perform a pre-existing contractual obligation will constitute good consideration so long as a benefit is conferred upon the 'promiseor'. This was a departure from the previously established principle that promises to perform pre-existing contractual obligations could not be good consideration.

Baltic Shipping Company v Dillon

Baltic Shipping Company v Dillon, the Mikhail Lermontov case, is a leading Australian contract law case, on the incorporation of exclusion clauses and damages for breach of contract or restitution for unjust enrichment.

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 had changed to the extent that the original contract is considered discharged.

<i>Cutter v Powell</i>

Cutter v Powell (1795) 101 ER 573 is an English contract law case, concerning substantial performance of a contract.

Creen v Wright (1875–76) LR 1 CPD 591 is an English contract law and labour law case concerning wrongful dismissal and the appropriate period of reasonable notice to be implied at common law in a contract of employment.

Unconscionability in English law is a field of contract law and the law of trusts, which precludes the enforcement of voluntary obligations unfairly exploiting the unequal power of the consenting parties. "Inequality of bargaining power" is another term used to express essentially the same idea for the same area of law, which can in turn be further broken down into cases on duress, undue influence and exploitation of weakness. In these cases, where someone's consent to a bargain was only procured through duress, out of undue influence or under severe external pressure that another person exploited, courts have felt it was unconscionable to enforce agreements. Any transfers of goods or money may be claimed back in restitution on the basis of unjust enrichment subject to certain defences.

Atlas Express v. Kafco Ltd. [1989] QB 833 is an English contract law case relating to duress.

Collier v P & MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd[2007] EWCA 1329 is an English contract law case, concerning the doctrine of consideration and promissory estoppel in relation to "alteration promises".

<i>Harris v Watson</i>

Harris v. Watson was a 1791 case regarding sailors' wages.

<i>Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan CC</i>

Glasbrook Brothers Ltd. v Glamorgan County Council [1924] UKHL 3 is an English contract law and labour law case concerning the liability of private parties paying for extra police protection.

The Act for the Better Regulation and Government of Seamen in the Merchants Service was a significant piece of British legislation passed in 1729. The Act was originally stipulated to run five years but was renewed periodically until it was made perpetual by 2 Geo. III, c. 5 in 1761. By mandating a formalized wage contract, the Act deterred captains from changing agreed-upon routes of their vessels, reduced desertion rates, and allowed for seamen to seek liberation from employers who broke contracts.

<i>Cook Islands Shipping Co Ltd v Colson Builders Ltd</i>

Cook Islands Shipping Co Ltd v Colson Builders Ltd [1975] 1 NZLR 422 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding performance of an existing contractual duty to a promisor in economic duress. This case reinforces the English case of Stilk v Myrick (1809) 2 Camp 317; 170 ER 1168

<i>Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd</i>

Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd[2018] UKSC 24 is a judicial decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom relating to contract law, concerning consideration and estoppel. Specifically it concerned the effectiveness of "no oral variation" clauses, which provide that any amendments or waiver in relation to the contract must be in writing.

References

  1. ↑ [1989] EWCA Civ 5
  2. 1 2 3 Poole (2004) p. 124
  3. 1 2 3 "Stilk v Myrick [1809] EWHC KB J58 (16th December 1809)". BAILII. Retrieved 20 January 2009.
  4. ↑ Poole (2004) p.125
  5. ↑ [1857] 7 E&B 872
  6. ↑ McKendrick (2007) p.97
  7. ↑ McKendrick (2007) p.99
  8. ↑ "MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd". My Law Tutors. 18 March 2017. Retrieved 20 March 2017.

Bibliography

Books
Articles
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.