Stilk v Myrick is a foundational English contract law case that addresses the doctrine of consideration, particularly the rule that performance of an existing contractual duty does not amount to valid consideration for a new promise.
Decided in 1809 by the Court of King’s Bench, the case has remained influential for over two centuries and continues to be cited in discussions on contractual variation and enforceability. The decision clarifies the limits of contractual modification and establishes an important boundary between valid contractual promises and those that lack fresh consideration.
Background and Legal Context of Stilk v Myrick
At the core of Stilk v Myrick lies the principle that for a contract or contractual variation to be legally binding, it must be supported by consideration. Consideration requires that each party provides something of value in exchange for the promise received. It does not need to be adequate or equal, but it must have economic value and must not simply repeat what a party is already legally obliged to do.
The case arose at a time when courts were particularly cautious about enforcing promises that could be influenced by pressure or necessity, especially in maritime contexts. Seafaring voyages were inherently dangerous, and crews were often reduced during long voyages due to desertion or death.
The courts were therefore concerned with protecting shipowners and captains from excessive or opportunistic wage demands by sailors during a voyage.
Facts of Stilk v Myrick Case
In Stilk v Myrick, the claimant, Stilk, was a seaman employed on a ship owned by the defendant, Myrick. Under the original contract, Stilk agreed to work on the voyage for a wage of £5 per month. The contract required him to perform all duties necessary for the voyage, including dealing with emergencies that might occur during the journey.
During the voyage, after the ship docked at Cronstadt, two members of the crew deserted. The captain attempted but failed to find replacement sailors. In response to the reduced manpower, the captain promised that the wages of the two deserting sailors would be shared equally amongst the remaining crew if they completed the voyage and safely returned the ship to London.
The remaining crew, including Stilk, continued to perform their duties and ensured the ship’s safe return to its home port. However, upon arrival in London, the captain refused to honour his promise of additional payment. Stilk then brought an action to recover the extra wages that had been promised.
Issues Raised
The key issue in Stilk v Myrick was whether the promise of additional payment made by the captain was legally enforceable. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the sailors had provided fresh consideration for the captain’s promise by continuing to work under more demanding conditions.
A further complexity arose because there were two different case reports: one written by Espinasse and another by Campbell. Espinasse’s report focused on public policy considerations, suggesting that the promise should not be enforced because it would allow sailors to exploit their position during a voyage. Campbell’s report, which later became the preferred and more authoritative account, framed the issue squarely in terms of consideration.
Arguments Presented
The defence, relying on earlier authority such as Harris v Watson, argued that the agreement for extra wages was contrary to public policy and therefore void. It was contended that sailors were already bound to deal with emergencies during a voyage, including reduced crew numbers due to desertion or death. Enforcing promises of extra payment in such situations could lead to unreasonable demands and place shipowners at the mercy of their crews.
The claimant’s representatives attempted to distinguish the case from Harris v Watson by arguing that the captain had voluntarily offered the additional wages, rather than being coerced by the sailors. However, this distinction did not succeed.
Stilk v Myrick Judgement
In Stilk v Myrick, Lord Ellenborough delivered the judgement of the court. While acknowledging the relevance of public policy considerations, he based his decision primarily on the doctrine of consideration. According to Campbell’s report, Lord Ellenborough held that the promise of additional payment was void for want of consideration.
He reasoned that the sailors had already agreed, under their original contract, to exert themselves to the utmost in all emergencies of the voyage. Desertion of crew members was considered one such emergency.
As a result, the remaining sailors were merely performing duties they were already contractually bound to perform. Since they had not provided any new or additional consideration, the captain’s promise of extra wages was not enforceable.
Lord Ellenborough noted that the outcome might have been different if the sailors had been free to abandon the ship at Cronstadt or if the captain had wrongfully dismissed the two missing crew members. In those circumstances, agreeing to take on additional duties might have amounted to valid consideration. However, those facts were not present in this case.
Conclusion
Stilk v Myrick remains a cornerstone of English contract law and an essential authority on the doctrine of consideration. The case clearly establishes that a promise to perform an existing contractual duty cannot, without more, constitute valid consideration for a new promise.
Although later decisions have softened its impact by recognising practical benefit and economic realities, the core principle continues to apply. The case illustrates the balance English contract law seeks to strike between certainty, fairness, and flexibility, and it continues to be studied as a key example of classical contractual reasoning.