What did the court decide in Stilk v. Myrick?

The sailors could not enforce the captain’s extra payment promise because they already had a duty to perform their ship duties under the original contract.

What rule comes from this case?

Performance of a pre-existing contractual duty is not valid consideration for a new promise.

Why wasn’t the extra work enough?

Covering deserted sailors’ tasks was within the crew’s existing obligations; no new legal detriment was given.

How can an extra payment be enforceable?

There must be fresh consideration, like additional duties beyond the original bargain, or a new benefit to the promisor.

Stilk v. Myrick

2 Camp 317 (1809) — Consideration • Pre-Existing Duty Rule

King’s Bench 1809 2 Camp 317 Contract • Consideration ~5 min India

Author: Gulzar Hashmi • Published: 26 Oct 2025

Quick Summary

Two sailors deserted at Cronstadt. The captain promised to split their wages among the remaining crew if they did double duty. On return, he refused to pay. The Court said the crew already had a contractual duty to do the ship’s work. Because there was no new consideration, the extra promise was not enforceable.

```

Issues

Was there sufficient consideration to support the captain’s extra-payment promise?

Rules

Pre-existing duty rule: Doing what you are already bound to do is not valid consideration for a new promise.
To enforce a modification, there must be fresh legal value—extra duty, new risk, or added benefit.

Classic common-law authority limiting mid-contract pay raises without new consideration.

Facts — Timeline

Voyage Events

Contract: Stilk agrees to serve on Myrick’s ship for $5 per month.

Cronstadt stop: Two sailors desert; crew numbers drop.

Captain’s promise: If remaining crew do the deserters’ work, their wages will be shared among them.

Home port: Captain refuses to pay extra; crew sue.

Held: No enforceable promise—pre-existing duty gives no consideration.

Timeline for Stilk v. Myrick: desertion, promise, refusal, suit

Arguments

Appellants (Crew)

They took on extra tasks after desertion.
Captain promised to share deserters’ wages.
Promise should be honored as consideration existed.

Respondent (Captain)

Crew already bound to sail and manage emergencies.
No fresh consideration for any extra payment.
Promise unenforceable under contract law.

Judgment

For the Captain

The Court held that the promise to share deserters’ wages lacked consideration. The crew’s extra work fell within their existing duty to keep the ship running. Therefore, the modification failed.

Judgment concept image: pre-existing duty defeats extra-pay promise

Ratio (Legal Principle)

No new consideration, no new contract. A promise to pay more for the same performance is not binding unless the promisee gives fresh legal value.

Why It Matters

Stops mid-voyage (mid-project) pressure for extra pay without new value.
Protects the original bargain and avoids opportunism.
Guides lawful contract variations: add new duties or benefits.

Key Takeaways

Pre-existing duty ≠ consideration.
Contract modifications need fresh value.
Write clear variation clauses before problems arise.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Same Work, Same Pay.”

Spot Duty: Are you already bound?
Add Value: New duty, risk, or benefit?
Then Bind: If yes → enforceable; if no → promise fails.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Was the captain’s extra-wage promise supported by consideration?

Rule

Pre-existing duty cannot serve as consideration for a new promise.

Application

Crew’s extra tasks fell within their original obligations during the voyage.

Conclusion

No consideration; modification unenforceable; captain not liable for extra pay.

Glossary

Consideration: Legal value exchanged—either a benefit to one side or a detriment to the other.
Pre-Existing Duty: An obligation already owed; it cannot support a new promise for more pay.
Contract Modification: A change to the bargain; usually requires fresh consideration at common law.