## Facts

- A ship’s master hired Stilk as a seaman for a voyage from London to the Baltic and back at £5 per month.
- Under the ship’s articles, Stilk agreed to do all he could “under all emergencies of the voyage” until completion.
- After the ship reached Cronstadt, two crew members deserted.
- The master attempted to find replacements but failed.
- The master promised the remaining crew that, if they continued the voyage and brought the ship back to London without replacements being obtained, they would share the deserters’ wages.
- No replacements were found, and the remaining crew sailed the ship back to London.
- On return, the master refused to pay the additional sums, and Stilk sued to recover his share.

## Issues

1. Whether the promise to pay additional wages was supported by fresh consideration where the sailors were already contractually bound to work through “all emergencies of the voyage.”
2. Whether mid-voyage promises of extra wages to seamen should be treated as unenforceable on public-policy grounds aimed at preventing opportunistic demands in dangerous circumstances.

## Decision

- The court held for the master and denied recovery of the promised additional wages.
- The promise was unenforceable for want of consideration because the crew’s continued work was already required by the original contract.
- The court accepted that similar outcomes had been reached in prior maritime wage cases, while indicating the better rationale was consideration rather than an open-ended public-policy rule.

## Legal Principles

- Performance of an existing contractual duty owed to the promisor is not, without more, valid consideration for a new promise to pay additional compensation.
- A contractual variation promising extra payment is unenforceable when the promisee merely does what the original contract already required, including performance in contingencies contemplated as part of the agreed risk.
- In evaluating alleged “extra” performance, courts examine whether the asserted burden falls within the scope of the original undertaking; if it does, the new promise is gratuitous.

## Conclusion

Because the sailors had already contracted to exert themselves under all emergencies of the voyage, their continued performance after desertions provided no fresh consideration for the master’s promise to pay additional wages, rendering that promise unenforceable.


Stilk v. Myrick, [1809] EWHC KB J58