Talk:Stilk v Myrick

Would this be decided the same today?

No. Stilk v Myrick, in my understanding would be decided differently today for two reasons. First, the contract variation would have been legitimate, given Williams v Roffey Bros. Even if the contract variation had not been valid, because it was found that the sailors who were left behind after the desertion of their crewmates put pressure on the captain, it would be a case of economic duress. Ironholds, I'd like it if you were a bit more cautious about telling me off. Economic duress is not a doctrine in its infancy - in the sense that it's recent, that may be true. In the sense that it can deal with cases of threats to harm someone's economic interests, it is fully developed. Maybe, however, you know something that I don't. Wikidea 19:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the to- and fro-ing, note WP:BRD; lets stop altering things for the time being. In regards to Stilk v Myrick, the actual facts are irrelevant; the principle and precedent set was that in cases where an individual is bound to do a duty under an existing contract, that duty could not be considered valid consideration for a new contract. This principle is still valid in English law. It has been amended (except when the duties change significantly and/or there is practical consideration/a variation in terms/so on, so forth) but the idea that Williams virtually voided Stilk, which is the impression given, is incorrect; this is, however, moot. The precedent set is not dependent on those particular circumstances turning up again, and playing "what if" is not helpful. Unless you can provide some reliable, third-party sources showing the near-destruction of Stilk, it is not an appropriate addition. Ironholds (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that, Ironholds, - and I'm not trying to be impolite - you may not have got the full complexity of the law, from how you've written this. There were two reports of the case. One report said the decision was based on public policy of deterring mutinies. The other report said the decision was based on the doctrine of consideration. Anyway, what I've said is accurate: Stilk v Myrick has been reversed in all but name - a "practical benefit" in Williams is pretty much the same thing as promising to perform a pre-existing duty. And if it was not a decision based on consideration, the case would follow the ordinary law on economic duress. Wikidea 19:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have books to hand. But I know I'm right, so maybe you could find something for me. You can also look at Williams itself:

“ If it be objected that the propositions above contravene the principle in Stilk v. Myrick, I answer that in my view they do not; they refine, and limit the application of that principle, but they leave the principle unscathed e.g. where B. secures no benefit by his promise. It is not in my view surprising that a principle enunciated in relation to the rigours of seafaring life during the Napoleonic wars should be subjected during the succeeding 180 years to a process of refinement and limitation in its application in the present day. ”

“ These citations demonstrate that whilst consideration remains a fundamental requirement before a contract not under seal can be enforced, the policy of the law in its search to do justice between the parties has developed considerably since the early nineteenth century when Stilk v. Myrick (1809) 2 Camp. 317 was decided by Lord Ellenborough C.J. In the late twentieth century I do not believe that the rigid approach to the concept of consideration to be found in Stilk v. Myrick is either necessary or desirable. Consideration there must still be but in my judgment the courts nowadays should be more ready to find its existence so as to reflect the intention of the parties to the contract where the bargaining powers are not unequal and where the finding of consideration reflects the true intention of the parties. ”

“ n my judgment, therefore, the rule in Stilk v. Myrick remains valid as a matter of principle, namely that a contract not under seal must be supported by consideration. Thus, where the agreement upon which reliance is placed provides that an extra payment is to be made for work to be done by the payee which he is already obliged to perform then unless some other consideration is detected to support the agreement to pay the extra sum that agreement will not be enforceable. ”

So, Stilk has been reversed in all but name. Your original revert was because you thought "substantially" was too strong. You substituted "partially", which was if you reflect, was perhaps best to have left. You should see that Stilk has been reversed in all but name, because the court in Williams was only the Court of Appeal, and felt bound to not be bold and overrule it explicitly. Wikidea 19:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

And now rephrase your entire argument in a way which doesn't contain WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS or your interpretation of primary sources, and it will be acceptable to include it in the article. Ironholds (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt your argument guys but everything I've been taught about Stylk v Myrick is that it still applies. Williams v Roffey has to satisfy several criteria - so it is a narrow ruling. I believe the Wikipedia introduction is misleading when it implies Stylk v Myrick was overturned. This is simply not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.30.13 (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

This article should not be so strident about the position of this case. It's been a few years since I graduated from law school but I remember that my professors would not have accepted it if I had written a paper this glib about the interaction between Stilk and Williams. Especially, since the court in Williams would not have the authority to overrule Foakes v Beer and didn't reference the case in its judgement. At best, you end up in a strange position where more for the same is good consideration but less for the same is not good consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.181.149 (talk) 03:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I changed it to something more accurate. It is more accurate to say the decision was "undermined" than it is to say that it was overruled. This lets us sidestep some of the more difficult problems that surround Williams potentially overruling Stilk without touching Foakes v Beer. The court in Re Selectmove decided to follow Foakes v Beer instead of Williams, although it did not go so far as to say Williams was incorrectly decided. In addition, it pointed out that Williams is potentially per incuriam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.181.149 (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Public Policy

Stilk was represented by the Attorney General, Sir Vicary Gibbs. Why would the Gonernment instruct the AG to represent a sailor, unless the Government felt that public policy was better served by Stylk winning his extra £1 a month (11 sailors including the master less 2). In fact Ellenborough said "Therefore, without looking to the policy of this agreement, I think it is void for want of consideration, and that the plaintiff can only recover at the rate of £5 a month."

Additionally the seamen would have had a written contract (whether or not they could read it) due to S1. of the Merchant Seamen Act 1728 which required a written contract upon "signing on" & thus a verbal variation of the contract by the captain might have been consider as contrary to statute. Espinasse's report (he was the junior to the AG for Stilk)does not mention consideration but refers several times to the signed articles. Peter Luther suggests that these were not actually available to the Court.Streona (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Rolling Stones v Guenter Treitel

According to a totally non-RS, the junior common room of Magdalen College, Oxford booked the up-and-coming Rolling Stones for their ball on 22 June 1964, but when the Stones hit the bigtime they tried to hike their fee; Magdalen fellow Guenter Treitel advised the JCR to accept the hike beforehand and refuse to pay it afterwards, citing Stilk v Myrick. It's at least plausible; according to a totally RS, after their first American tour, the "jet-lagged Stones honoured a commitment to play the Magdalen Ball at Oxford for a fee of twelve pounds". jnestorius^(talk) 17:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Further investigations:

• Laurence Brockliss says it was the Commemoration ball, and the Stones "were held to their contract ... for a fee which did not cover their travel expenses".
• Another source quotes three attendees:
  1. Viv Boorman says the students sought advice from H. L. A. Hart not Treitel, but that seems less likely since Hart was jurisprudence and University College, whereas Treitel was law of contract and Magdalen. (Unless Hart referred them on to Treitel?)
  2. Ian Lewty says Andrew Loog Oldham only requested they "boost the fee a little", but maybe Lewty or Oldham was being ironic
  3. Neil Robinson says the Stones were "flown back from the States for a £300 payment", which is more than £12 but maybe still less than their travel expenses.

jnestorius^(talk) 18:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

And finally...

• Frederick Wilmot-Smith says the case Treitel cited was Foakes v Beer.
• The 1963–4 JCR president says their fee was £100 and omits mention of cases, saying only "they were reluctantly forced to return early from their first and successful American tour to play at Magdalen, under threat of 'self induced frustration of contract'."

jnestorius^(talk) 18:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Wrong on facts, wrong on law

"It is clear enough that the seamen were doing more work on the return voyage than they had agreed to do -- their own work plus the work of the two deserters . . . Counsel, representing impecunious seamen with fairly small claims, may not have been as aggressive and ingenious on their behalf as they should have been . . . Stilk v. Myrick can hardly be described as a case in which a dissatisfied party insists on more pay for doing the same work." Gilmore, "The Death of Contract", at 24. ````captcrisis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.148.151.49 (talk) 02:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)