Caseflicks

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit • 1902

Alaska Packers' Ass'n v. Domenico

117 F. 99 | 54 C.C.A. 485 | 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4410

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case applies the preexisting-duty rule: a party cannot enforce extra compensation promised solely because it threatened to withhold performance already required by contract.

Background

The fishermen contracted in San Francisco to travel to Pyramid Harbor, Alaska, work the 1900 salmon-fishing season, and return. Their agreements required regular ship’s duties, fishing, and any other work requested by the company’s captain or agent. In exchange, they were to receive a seasonal payment of $50 or $60, depending on the agreement, plus two cents for each red salmon caught with their participation.

After arriving at the company’s remote Alaska cannery and beginning work, the fishermen collectively stopped working. They demanded $100 each rather than the agreed seasonal wage and threatened to quit and return to San Francisco unless the company agreed. Because the season was beginning, the location was remote, and replacement workers were unavailable, the superintendent had a clerk prepare documents substituting $100 for the original seasonal wages. The superintendent testified that he told the fishermen he lacked authority to alter their original contracts.

At season’s end, the company paid the fishermen according to the original agreements, and they executed releases. The fishermen nonetheless sued for the additional compensation. The trial court found that the company had not supplied defective or unusable fishing nets and therefore that the fishermen had no justification for refusing to perform their original contracts. But it held the later agreement enforceable. The Ninth Circuit reversed and directed judgment for the company.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the company’s alleged promise to pay the fishermen increased wages was supported by consideration when the fishermen promised only to perform the work they were already contractually bound to perform.

Holding

No. The alleged promise of additional wages lacked consideration and was unenforceable.

Reasoning

The fishermen had already undertaken to perform the same shipboard, fishing, and cannery-related work for the wages set out in their original agreements. Under the asserted May 22 agreement, they promised no additional service and assumed no new burden. A promise to do what one is already legally obligated to do is not consideration for a new promise of payment.

The trial court’s finding that the nets were not defective meant that the fishermen had no valid basis for halting work. Their collective refusal to continue performing therefore amounted to a willful breach of their existing contracts, not a legitimate demand for revised terms based on the company’s nonperformance.

The company’s apparent assent was obtained when it faced acute practical pressure: it had a substantial investment in a remote cannery, the fishing season was short and opening, and it could not obtain replacement workers. The court treated the fishermen’s demand as taking unfair advantage of those circumstances rather than as a voluntary, bargained-for modification.

The company did not voluntarily waive the fishermen’s breach or mutually rescind the original contracts. The company itself did not learn of the events until the expedition returned to San Francisco, and the superintendent expressly stated that he lacked authority to alter the contracts. If he lacked authority to modify the agreements, he likewise lacked authority to waive the company’s rights arising from their breach.

Enforcing an increase extracted through a threat not to perform an existing duty would reward bad faith and encourage parties to breach contracts in order to secure better terms. The court followed the prevailing common-law rule that such a promise is a nudum pactum—an agreement unsupported by consideration—and rejected contrary authorities suggesting that a threatened breach and continued performance could supply consideration.