Hartley v Ponsonby
Where the remaining crew are released from their original contract by the scale of desertion, a promise of extra pay is enforceable.
Facts
Hartley was a seaman on a ship sailing to Bombay. During the voyage, so many of the crew deserted that only 19 of the original 36 were left, of whom only four or five were able seamen. It was dangerous to continue the voyage with so few hands. The master promised the remaining crew extra pay if they sailed the ship on to Bombay. They did so, but the extra pay was not given, and Hartley sued.
Legal principle
The court held that Hartley was entitled to the extra pay. The desertion was on such a scale that continuing the voyage was unsafe, so the remaining crew were no longer bound by their original contracts to sail the ship. In agreeing to continue, they entered into a new contract and gave fresh consideration. The case is distinguished from Stilk v Myrick, where the crew were still bound by their original contracts.
Related cases on consideration and promissory estoppel
- Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130
- Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestlé Co Ltd [1960] AC 87
- Collier v P & MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1329, [2008] 1 WLR 643
- Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215
- Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 153
- D & C Builders Ltd v Rees [1966] 2 QB 617
- Foakes v Beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605
- Glasbrook Bros Ltd v Glamorgan County Council [1925] AC 270
Studying contract law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
