FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 889 times | Saved to 66 briefcases
Stilk v Myrick [1809] EWHC KB J58

Facts:

Seaman’s wage. 2 men deserted. Captain told remaining men he would pay more if they did the deserters work/then refused to pay

Issue(s):

Are the seamen entitled to the extra wage?

Ratio:

Where an existing contract is varied, new consideration must be provided in order to validate it.
You cant get paid more for promising to do something you have already promised to do.

Analysis:

The desertion of part of the crew is considered to be an emergency, and they had already promised to do everything they could in am emergency situation

Holding:

Void for want of consideration

Comments:

Harris v Watson relied on public policy, this case relied on consideration


Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.