Facts
- The claimant, a seaman, entered into an employment contract with the shipmaster to sail to the Baltic and back for a wage of £5 per month.
- During the voyage, two crew members deserted.
- The shipmaster promised the remaining crew that if they fulfilled the duties of the deserters in addition to their own, they would receive the deserters' wages divided among them.
- Upon completion of the voyage, the shipmaster refused to pay the additional wages, asserting that the crew were already contractually obliged to perform these duties.
- The central dispute was whether the promise of extra pay was supported by sufficient consideration, given the sailors’ existing contractual obligations.
Issues
- Whether a promise to pay additional wages for performing duties already contemplated by the original employment contract constitutes valid consideration.
- Whether a modification to an existing contract requires fresh consideration.
- Whether public policy concerns, such as the prevention of duress and maintaining contractual stability, affect the enforceability of contractual modifications.
Decision
- The Court ruled against the claimant seaman, holding that the sailors provided no fresh consideration for the promise of additional pay.
- It was determined that the sailors’ obligations under the original contract already included performing all duties necessary to bring the ship safely home, including covering for absent crew members.
- The court concluded that the agreement to pay extra wages was void due to lack of new or additional consideration.
- The judgment emphasized the need to prevent parties from manipulating existing contracts to demand extra payment for work they were already bound to perform.
- Public policy considerations influenced the decision by seeking to avoid situations where crew members could threaten non-performance to extract additional payment.
Legal Principles
- Performance of an existing contractual duty owed to the promisor does not constitute valid consideration for a new promise.
- A binding contract modification requires fresh consideration; a party must provide something additional or different to existing obligations.
- The principle aims to preserve contractual stability and guard against extortion or duress in contractual relationships.
- Later case law (notably, Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls [1991]) has qualified this rule, holding that a promise to pay more for the same performance may be enforceable where the promisor obtains a practical benefit and there is no duress.
- The doctrine of consideration is subject to ongoing debate, particularly regarding the inconsistency between the principles established in Stilk v Myrick, Williams v Roffey, and Foakes v Beer.
Conclusion
Stilk v Myrick established the strict rule that performance of an existing duty is not valid consideration for a new contractual promise, reinforcing contractual certainty and guarding against duress; while later cases have qualified this approach, the tension in the doctrine of consideration remains central to ongoing debate in contract law.