A Case Analysis on Stilk V Myrick
CONTRACTS PROJECT
A CASE ANALYSIS ON
Stilk v Myrick
16 December 1809
(1809) 2 Campbell 317
170 E.R. 1168
BY
ROHAN GOSWAMI
NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, ODISHA
ROLL NUMBER: 042
SEMESTER: SECOND SEMESTER
COURSE: B.A. L.L.B
Email: 12BA042@nluo.ac.in
FEBRUARY 2013
This case analysis forms a part of the internal assignment and was assigned by the subject Professor Mr Rangin Pallav Tripathy.
Issues that would be dealt with in the following case analysis:
* The Law as it stood before the Case, * Properly structured facts of the Case, * Issues before the Court, * Issues which were determine by the Court, * Identifying such issues if any, which the Court did not determine, * Properly stating the Decision of the Court, * The reasons as identified by the Court for its Decision, * Your analysis of whether the issues were framed properly or not, * Your analysis as to the correctness of the reasoning of the Court and * Your Opinion on the impact of the decision on the Law in general.
The Law as it stood before the Case
Pre-existing Duty Rule:
This case was decided on the basis of Principle of CONSIDERATION under the existing Law of Contracts and the law was same before the ruling of this case.
When a seaman is bound by his contract of service to serve for a particular voyage, a promise to increase his wages, unless there is increased duty or hazard, does not bind the promisor.2 It is otherwise, however, if the promise is made in consideration of increased peril and labor under circumstances which would have justified the seaman in throwing up the contract.
The Judgment was inspired by a preceding case Harris v. Watson.
However the applicability of Stilk v Myrick was still debatable until it was overturned by Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd.
Facts Of The Case
This is related to a seaman’s wages on a voyage from London to Baltic and back.
Before the commencement of the
A CASE ANALYSIS ON
Stilk v Myrick
16 December 1809
(1809) 2 Campbell 317
170 E.R. 1168
BY
ROHAN GOSWAMI
NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, ODISHA
ROLL NUMBER: 042
SEMESTER: SECOND SEMESTER
COURSE: B.A. L.L.B
Email: 12BA042@nluo.ac.in
FEBRUARY 2013
This case analysis forms a part of the internal assignment and was assigned by the subject Professor Mr Rangin Pallav Tripathy.
Issues that would be dealt with in the following case analysis:
* The Law as it stood before the Case, * Properly structured facts of the Case, * Issues before the Court, * Issues which were determine by the Court, * Identifying such issues if any, which the Court did not determine, * Properly stating the Decision of the Court, * The reasons as identified by the Court for its Decision, * Your analysis of whether the issues were framed properly or not, * Your analysis as to the correctness of the reasoning of the Court and * Your Opinion on the impact of the decision on the Law in general.
The Law as it stood before the Case
Pre-existing Duty Rule:
This case was decided on the basis of Principle of CONSIDERATION under the existing Law of Contracts and the law was same before the ruling of this case.
When a seaman is bound by his contract of service to serve for a particular voyage, a promise to increase his wages, unless there is increased duty or hazard, does not bind the promisor.2 It is otherwise, however, if the promise is made in consideration of increased peril and labor under circumstances which would have justified the seaman in throwing up the contract.
The Judgment was inspired by a preceding case Harris v. Watson.
However the applicability of Stilk v Myrick was still debatable until it was overturned by Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd.
Facts Of The Case
This is related to a seaman’s wages on a voyage from London to Baltic and back.
Before the commencement of the