Stilk v Myrick
Performing an existing contractual duty owed to the promisor is not good consideration for a promise of extra pay.
Facts
Stilk was a seaman on a voyage from London to the Baltic and back, at a wage of £5 a month. During the voyage, at Kronstadt, two of the eleven crew deserted. The captain could not find replacements, so he promised the remaining crew that the deserters' wages would be divided among them if they worked the ship back to London. They did so, but the captain refused to pay the extra wages, and Stilk sued.
Legal principle
Lord Ellenborough held that the promise of extra pay was unenforceable. The seamen had already undertaken, under their original contracts, to do all they could in the emergencies of the voyage, and the desertion of two men was such an emergency. In sailing the ship home they did no more than they were already bound to do, so they gave no fresh consideration for the promise. The case is reported in two versions, one of which treats the promise as unenforceable on grounds of public policy, but the consideration reasoning is the one that has been followed.
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.
