Stilk v Myrick

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. 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 lawyers for the plaintiff unsuccessfully tried distinguishing that unlike Harris, the captain had voluntarily offered the extra money, rather than being pressured by the crewmen. ==Judgment==

There are two reports of this case: Campbell's report (1809) 2 Camp 317, 170 ER 1168 and Espinasse's report (1809) 6 Esp 129, 170 ER 851. Campbell's report is generally taken as more authoritative. Whereas Espinasse's report made no mention of consideration, Campbell's report quoted Lord Ellenborough as remarking: Contract law scholar Grant Gilmore has argued that Lord Ellenborough's focus on consideration doctrine, as opposed to the public policy rationale of Harris, was attributable to the King's Bench's ongoing efforts to repudiate Lord Mansfield's conflation of consideration with moral obligations. ==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. 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 [1991] 1 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 in MWB v Rock Advertising [2016] EWCA Civ 553 which has led to considerable criticism. ==See also==