''Hartley v Ponsonby''

857 __NOTOC__ Year 857 ( DCCCLVII) was a common year starting on Friday (link will display the full calendar) of the Julian calendar. Events By place Byzantine Empire * Emperor Michael III, under the influence of his uncle Bardas, banis ...

26 LJ QB 322 is a leading judgment on the subject of

consideration Consideration is a concept of English common law and is a necessity for simple contracts but not for special contracts (contracts by deed). The concept has been adopted by other common law jurisdictions. The court in ''Currie v Misa'' declared ...

English contract law English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the industrial revolution, it shares a heritage with countries ...

. The judgment constituted an amendment to the

precedent A precedent is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. Common-law legal systems place great valu ...

set by ''

Stilk v Myrick ''Stilk v Myrick'' King's_Bench_on_the_subject_of_809EWHC_KB_J58is_an_English_contract_law_case_heard_in_the_Court_of_King's_Bench_(England)">King's_Bench_on_the_subject_of_Consideration_under_English_law">consideration._In_his_verdict,_the_jud ...

809 __NOTOC__ Year 809 (Roman numerals, DCCCIX) was a common year starting on Monday (link will display the full calendar) of the Julian calendar. Events By place Byzantine Empire * Spring – Siege of Serdica (809), Siege of Serdica: ...

EWHC KB J58 that allowed contractual duties to be considered valid consideration for a future contract if the duties had changed to the extent that the original contract is considered discharged.

Facts

Hartley was contracted to crew a ship owned by Ponsonby. After docking, seventeen of the thirty-six man crew deserted, and only six of the remaining men were competent seamen.McKendrick (2007) 97 With so many crew members missing it was unsafe for the remaining crew to continue the voyage, but they agreed to do so after being promised extra pay once the ship docked. When the ship arrived at the home port, Ponsonby refused to pay the crewmen the extra wages he had promised.

Judgment

Lord Campbell CJ decided that although ''

EWHC KB J58 said that sailors were not entitled to additional pay for fulfilling a duty already required by an existing contract, they were in this case. The desertion of so many crewmen (compared to the desertion of two crewmen in ''Stilk v Myrick'') changed the nature of the remaining sailors' duties to the point where the contract could be considered discharged. As such the offer by Ponsonby to pay the crew to sail back and the acceptance by the crew could be considered an entirely new contract, providing valid consideration.

Notes

{{Reflist, 2

References

*E McKendrick, ''Contract Law'' (7th edn Palgrave Macmillan 2007) 1857 in case law 1857 in British law English consideration case law English enforceability case law Court of King's Bench (England) cases