Hartley v Ponsonby
Encyclopedia
Hartley v Ponsonby [1857] 26 LJ QB 322 is a leading judgment on the subject of consideration
in English contract law
. The judgment constituted an amendment to the precedent
set by Stilk v Myrick
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.
[1809] 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.
Consideration under English law
Consideration in English law is one of the three main building blocks of a contract. Consideration can be anything of value , which each party to a legally binding contract must agree to exchange if the contract is to be valid. If only one party offers consideration, the agreement is not legally a...
in English contract law
English contract law
English contract law is a body of law regulating contracts 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 across the Commonwealth , and the United States...
. The judgment constituted an amendment to the precedent
Precedent
In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a principle or rule established in a legal case that a court or other judicial body may apply when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts...
set by Stilk v Myrick
Stilk v Myrick
Stilk v Myrick [1809] is an English contract law case of the High Court on the subject of consideration. In his verdict, the judge, Lord Ellenborough decided that in cases where an individual was bound to do a duty under an existing contract, that duty could not be considered valid consideration...
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. With so many crew members missing it was unsafe for the remaining crew to continue the voyage, but they agreed to 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 money he had promised.Judgment
The judge decided that although Stilk v MyrickStilk v Myrick
Stilk v Myrick [1809] is an English contract law case of the High Court on the subject of consideration. In his verdict, the judge, Lord Ellenborough decided that in cases where an individual was bound to do a duty under an existing contract, that duty could not be considered valid consideration...
[1809] 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.