Court: Assizes
Judgment Date: 16 December 1809
Where Reported: 170 E.R. 1168; (1809) 2 Camp. 317
Legal Issues in Stilk v Myrick
Stilk v Myrick addresses the legal principle of consideration in contract law.
It examines whether a promise of additional remuneration is enforceable when made to crew members who agreed to complete a voyage under circumstances different from their original contract.
The key question in Stilk v Myrick was whether performing duties within the scope of the original contractual obligations constitutes valid consideration for a new promise.
Material Facts in Stilk v Myrick
In Stilk v Myrick, two seamen deserted a ship during a voyage. The captain promised the remaining crew members that he would distribute the wages of the deserters among them if they completed the voyage.
This promise was made because the captain couldn’t find replacements at the next port.
The crew fulfilled their duties and completed the voyage, but the captain did not pay the additional wages. Stilk v Myrick centres on whether the captain’s promise of extra payment was enforceable.
Judgment in Stilk v Myrick
The court ruled that the captain’s promise to pay additional wages was not enforceable. It was held that the remaining crew members had only performed their existing contractual duties, which did not constitute new consideration.
Therefore, the promise of extra payment lacked the necessary consideration to form a new contract. The crew members were entitled only to their original agreed wages.
The Reason for the Decision in Stilk v Myrick
The court’s decision was based on the principle that an enforceable contract requires consideration, which must be something of value given in exchange for a promise.
In this case, the crew’s continued performance of their duties, which they were already contractually obligated to perform, did not constitute new or additional consideration.
The principle established is that fulfilling an existing contractual obligation cannot be used as consideration for a new promise.
The decision also reflects the concern of the courts to maintain contractual stability and prevent exploitation of unforeseen circumstances.
The court was wary of setting a precedent where contractual parties could be compelled under duress to modify contracts. Such a precedent could undermine the certainty and fairness in contractual relations.
The ruling also took into account the specific context of maritime contracts. In such situations, it was common for crew members to face hardships and unexpected challenges.
The court recognised that allowing crew members to claim additional wages for completing tasks they were already obligated to perform could lead to unreasonable and unmanageable demands in similar situations – see Hartley v Ponsonby.
Conclusion
Stilk v Myrick is a foundational case in contract law, emphasising the importance of consideration for the formation of a binding agreement.
The ruling in Stilk v Myrick clarifies that fulfilling or promising to fulfil an existing contractual obligation does not constitute valid consideration for a new promise – see Eastwood v Kenyon (1840).
This case has significant implications in establishing the boundaries of contractual obligations and the enforceability of promises made without new consideration.
