Facts
Stilk was contracted to work on a ship owned by Myrick for £5 a month, promising to do anything needed in the voyage regardless of emergencies.Poole (2004) p. 124 After the ship docked at Cronstadt two men deserted, and after failing to find replacements the captain promised the crew the wages of those two men divided between them if they fulfilled the duties of the missing crewmen as well as their own. After arriving at their home port the captain refused to pay the crew the money he had promised to them. The defence, represented by Garrow, argued that the agreement between the captain and the sailors or seamenwas contrary to public policy, and utterly void. InThe lawyers for the plaintiff attempted to distinguish this case from ''Harris v Watson'' by pointing out that the circumstances were completely different, and that the captain had offered the extra money without any pressure being brought to bear by the crewmen.West India Western India is a loosely defined region of India consisting of its western part. The Ministry of Home Affairs in its Western Zonal Council Administrative division includes the states of Goa, Gujarat, and Maharashtra along with the Uni ...voyages, crews are often thinned greatly by death and desertion; and if a promise of advanced wages were valid, exorbitant claims would be set up on all such occasions. This ground was strongly taken by Lord Kenyon in '' Harris v Watson'', Peak. Cas. 72, where that learned Judge held, that no action would lie at the suit of a sailor on a promise of a captain to pay him extra wages, in consideration of his doing more than the ordinary share of duty in navigating the ship; and his Lordship said, that if such a promise could be enforced, sailors would in many cases suffer a ship to sink unless the captain would accede to any extravagant demand they might think proper to make.
Judgment
Lord Ellenborough's judgment read:Significance
Modern commentators say that the decision by the judge not to award the money to the plaintiffs was based at least partly on public policy; should he have done so it would have created precedent that would risk crew members blackmailing captains into giving them more money. It is accepted that the decision would likely be different if it was made in modern times, because of the doctrine of economic duress it would be difficult for such blackmail to be enforced in court.Poole (2004) p.125 In '' Hartley v Ponsonby'' it was held that where a remaining crew were required to do something extra, beyond the scope of their contracts (which unlike in ''Stilk'' did not require performance in all emergencies) that the promise of extra pay could be enforced. Another exception to the rule that performing a pre-existing contractual duty is not valid consideration for a new agreement was created in '' Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd'' 9911 QB 1 which decided that in such situations the court will be quick to find consideration, if "practical benefits" are given from one to another party. The practical benefit doctrine has recently been extended to a lease agreement which involved the payer of a lesser sum inSee also
*References
Bibliography
;Books * *{{cite book, last=McKendrick, first=Ewan, title=Contract Law, publisher=Palgrave Macmillan, date=2007, edition=7th, isbn=0-230-01883-1 ;Articles *P Luther, ‘Campbell, Espinasse and the Sailors’ (1999) 19 Legal Studies 526 *M Chen-Wishart, ‘Consideration: Practical Benefit and the Emperor’s New Clothes’ in J Beatson and D Friedmann, ''Good Faith and Fault in Contract Law'' (1995) 123 English enforceability case law English consideration case law 1809 in British law 1809 in case law Court of King's Bench (England) cases