Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:
PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from
The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:
Choose Your Subscription:
--OR--
Register and Subscribe Now
Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:
PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from
The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:
Choose Your Subscription:
--OR--
The defendants (APA) contracted plaintiffs (Sailors) to sail between San Francisco and Alaska & agreed to pay $50 and 2 cents per salmon they catch. Upon arrival, sailors demanded $100. Defendant’s representative in Alaska signed a new contract for $100 payment. However, upon returning to San Francisco, Defendant paid only $50. The sailors sued Defendant alleging they had demanded the new contract price. Judgment was entered for the Plaintiffs and Defendant appealed.
Where parties enter a new agreement under which one party consents to do more than he was already obligated to do under an existing contract, the new contract is unenforceable for lack of consideration.
In March 1900, a group of fishermen contracted with the Alaska Packers’ Association (APA) to work on a fishing boat during the salmon season. They agreed to fish for salmon, deliver their catch to APA’s cannery in Alaska, and return to San Francisco. The contract stipulated that each fisherman would be paid $50 plus two cents for each salmon caught.
The following month, additional fishermen joined under similar terms but were offered $60 plus the same per-salmon rate. In May 1900, after arriving in Alaska, the fishermen collectively stopped working and demanded a new contract with a base pay of $100. Due to the short fishing season and the remote location, APA’s superintendent reluctantly agreed to the new terms to avoid a total loss of the season. However, once the work was completed, APA paid the fishermen according to the original contract terms.
The fishermen then sued APA for breach of the revised contract, seeking the additional pay they had demanded. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled in favor of the fishermen, but APA appealed.
Is an agreement made between parties who have obligations to each other under a current contract enforceable on the off chance that if one party is required to perform only what he or she was already obligated to perform under the original contract?
Yes. Where parties enter a new agreement under which one party consents to do more than he was already obligated to do under an existing contract, the new contract is unenforceable for lack of consideration.