Stilk v Myrick (1809): The Existing Duty Rule in Contract Law

Stilk v Myrick (1809) 2 Camp 317 is a classic on consideration. Below is a structured analysis of the case along with its key details.

• Court: England and Wales High Court (King’s Bench Division)
• Judge: Lord Ellenborough CJ
• Citations: [1809] EWHC KB J58; (1809) 170 ER 1168; (1809) 2 Camp 317
• Date of Judgment: 16 December 1809
• Area of Law: Contract Law, Doctrine of Consideration

Facts: Stilk v Myrick

Stilk was a seaman hired for a voyage from London → Baltic → London at £5 per month.

During the voyage, two sailors deserted at Cronstadt.

The captain attempted but failed to hire replacements.

He then promised the remaining crew (including Stilk) that the deserters’ wages would be divided among them if he could not fill the vacancies later.

No replacements were found at the next port (Gottenburgh), and the ship was safely sailed back to London by the reduced crew.

Stilk sued, claiming he was entitled to the additional wages promised.

Issue

Was the captain’s promise to pay extra wages enforceable?

Specifically: Was there valid consideration for the promise?

Defendant’s Argument (Myrick)

The promise was void as a matter of public policy (following Harris v Watson), because allowing extra-wage claims could encourage sailors to demand more in emergencies.

Plaintiff’s Argument (Stilk)

Unlike Harris v Watson, this agreement was made on shore at Cronstadt, without danger or pressure. The captain voluntarily made the promise, so it should be enforceable.

Holding in Stilk v Myrick

The agreement for extra wages was void.

Stilk was entitled only to his original £5 per month.

Reasoning (Lord Ellenborough)

1. No Consideration

The sailors had already promised in the original contract to do “all they could under all the emergencies of the voyage,” and work the ship back to London safely.

Desertion of crew members is an emergency of the voyage, just like death. Therefore, the sailors did nothing beyond their existing contractual duties. Since they provided no fresh consideration, the promise is unenforceable.

2. Public Policy Not the Primary Ground

Lord Ellenborough acknowledged Harris v Watson but preferred a contractual consideration analysis instead of relying on “public policy.”

Rule of Law (Stilk v Myrick)

A promise to pay extra for performing an existing contractual duty is not enforceable without fresh consideration.

This became a classic precedent in contract law, especially on the doctrine of consideration.

Important Notes

1. If the sailors had been free to leave at Cronstadt or had taken on extra duties outside the original contract, the promise might have been enforceable.

2. Later cases like Williams v Roffey Bros (1990) modify this principle, allowing additional payment if the promisor obtains a practical benefit.

You may refer to the full text of the case judgment here:

https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/1809/J58.html

---

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW:

• A Quick Summary of Price v Easton (1833)
• Re McArdle [1951]: A Quick Summary
• A Case Summary of Roscorla v Thomas (1842)