## Facts

- Harris was a seaman employed on the ship *Alexander* at agreed wages under an existing service contract.
- During a voyage to Lisbon, the ship encountered danger at sea.
- The ship’s master, Watson, promised Harris an additional five guineas if Harris performed extra work to help save the vessel.
- Harris performed the additional work, and the ship was saved.
- After the voyage, Watson refused to pay the promised five guineas, and Harris sued to recover the additional amount.

## Issues

1. Whether a captain’s promise of additional wages to a seaman, made during maritime peril to induce greater effort, is enforceable as a contractual modification.
2. Whether performance of extra work in an emergency supplies consideration when the seaman already owes a duty to work for agreed wages.
3. Whether public policy concerning maritime safety and sailors’ incentives bars enforcement of such emergency promises.

## Decision

- Judgment for Watson; Harris could not recover the additional five guineas.
- The court held the promise was unenforceable, emphasizing public policy concerns affecting maritime navigation and safety.
- The court reasoned that allowing enforcement would encourage sailors to withhold effort in emergencies unless paid extra, risking extortionate demands and endangering ships.

## Legal Principles

- A promise to pay additional compensation for performance that substantially falls within an existing duty may be unenforceable for lack of fresh consideration.
- Contract modifications extracted or offered during emergencies may be denied enforcement where circumstances create a strong risk of coercion or opportunism.
- Public policy in maritime law disfavors enforcing on-board, peril-time promises of extra wages that could distort sailors’ incentives to protect ship and cargo.

## Conclusion

The court refused to enforce a captain’s promise of extra wages made during peril at sea, reasoning that the seaman’s emergency efforts did not furnish enforceable new consideration and that public policy required preventing bargaining that could endanger navigation by encouraging opportunistic demands in moments of danger.


Harris v. Watson, 170 Eng. Rep. 94 (K.B. 1791)