판결 이유
Performing an existing contractual duty owed to the promisor does not constitute good consideration for a fresh promise. Where a party merely does what they are already contractually bound to do, they provide nothing additional to support a new promise of extra payment.
사실관계
Stilk was a seaman on a voyage from London to the Baltic and back. During the voyage, two sailors deserted. The captain, unable to find replacements, promised the remaining crew that they would share the deserters' wages if they worked the ship home short-handed. The crew agreed and sailed the ship back to London. The captain then refused to pay the additional wages.
판결 요약
The court held that the crew were not entitled to the additional wages. They were already contracted to work the ship home and to meet the ordinary emergencies of the voyage, which included manning the ship if crew members deserted. Performing this existing obligation did not constitute consideration for the captain's new promise of extra wages. Lord Ellenborough (as reported in Campbell's version) based the decision on public policy and lack of consideration.
주요 인용문
"The agreement is void for want of consideration. There was no consideration for the ulterior pay promised to the mariners who remained with the ship."
— Lord Ellenborough CJ
후속 처리
Followed as the traditional rule that performing existing contractual duties is not good consideration.
The practical effect has been modified by Williams v Roffey Bros [1991], which held that a practical benefit obtained by the promisor can constitute consideration, though Stilk v Myrick has not been expressly overruled.