Contract Law

Stilk v. Myrick

(1809) 2 Camp 317

Facts

Stilk was a seaman serving on a ship for an agreed wage.
During the voyage, two sailors deserted.
The captain was unable to replace them.
He promised the remaining crew that the wages of the deserters would be divided among them if they completed the voyage.
The remaining sailors performed the additional work necessary to bring the ship home.
After the voyage, the captain refused to pay the promised additional wages.
Stilk sued to recover his share.
The shipowner argued that the crew had already undertaken to do all that was necessary during the voyage, including dealing with ordinary emergencies.

Whether the remaining crew provided fresh consideration for the captain’s promise of extra wages.
Whether performing an existing contractual duty can support a new promise.

Doing what a person is already contractually bound to do is not fresh consideration.
A new promise of payment is unenforceable unless the promisee undertakes:
additional duties;
a materially greater burden; or
work outside the original contractual obligation.
Where unexpected events fall within the risks already assumed under the original contract, continued performance does not constitute new consideration.

The sailors had agreed to serve for the entire voyage.
Their contractual duty was not limited to performing only a fixed share of work under ideal conditions.
Seafaring involved foreseeable risks, including:
illness;
absence;
desertion;
increased workload.
The remaining crew had promised to do what was necessary to bring the ship safely home.
The desertion of two sailors did not make the voyage fundamentally different or the ship dangerously undermanned.
Therefore, the sailors merely performed what they were already legally bound to do.
The captain received no fresh legal benefit beyond the crew’s original promise.
The Court also reflected a policy concern.
If sailors could demand additional payment whenever difficulties arose at sea, they might exploit the captain’s vulnerable position.
Such promises could be made under practical pressure and would threaten discipline aboard ships.
The judgment should be distinguished from cases where the circumstances become so extreme that the original duty is fundamentally altered.
If the remaining crew had been required to undertake work wholly outside the original bargain, fresh consideration might have existed.
But here, the increased burden remained within the original employment obligation.

The Court held that the promise of extra wages was unenforceable.
The sailors had given no fresh consideration because they merely performed their existing contractual duty.
Use this case for: performance of an existing contractual obligation is not sufficient consideration for a promise to pay more.