Stilk v Myrick (1809)

Court: Court of King's Bench

Facts: Stilk was employed on a ship owned by Myrick, with a contract stipulating a monthly wage of £5 and an obligation to perform all necessary duties, including in emergencies. During a stop at Cronstadt, two crew members deserted. Myrick promised the remaining crew the wages of the deserters if they took on the deserters' duties in addition to their own. Upon returning home, Myrick refused to pay the promised additional wages.

Issue: Whether the promise to pay additional wages for performing existing contractual duties constituted valid consideration for a new contract.

Held: The court held that there was no valid consideration for the promise of extra wages. Lord Ellenborough emphasized that the crew was already bound by their original contract to perform all necessary duties, including during emergencies like desertion. Since the crew's performance was a pre-existing contractual duty, it could not serve as consideration for the additional promise.

Key Judicial Statement: Lord Ellenborough noted that the agreement for extra wages was void due to lack of consideration, as the sailors were already obligated to ensure the safety of the ship in emergencies.

💡Leveluplaw: This case highlights that a promise to pay more for the performance of an existing contractual obligation is not enforceable due to lack of consideration. The decision reinforces the principle that fulfilling an existing duty cannot serve as valid consideration for a new promise. The case was later distinguished by the "practical benefits" doctrine in Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991], which allows for consideration to be found even when pre-existing duties are involved, provided practical benefits are conferred.