Issue
Is Bill Smith shown consideration by the Master of Fair Weather? Is TransPacific shipping Co Ltd Legally liable to pay Smith the 50% premium for sailing back to New Zealand on the Fair Weather voyage?
Law
In order for consideration to be valid, either something must be given up from the promisee or the promisor must make a benefit from the offer. If this occurs there will be a legal contract between the two parties (Hubbard, Thomas & Varnham, 2013). If a contract already exists can an individual offer a new contract? A change in a contract means a change in the terms that were agreed and therefore the executory consideration must be adjusted. For the law of contract to occur an enforceable contract must be made.
Application
Hubbard, …show more content…
Ponsonby case, Hartley was contracted to a ship that was owned by Ponsonby. After docking, most of the ship’s crew abandoned the voyage. The captain promised the remaining crewmembers extra money if they worked on the ship and completed the voyage. When the ship arrived at the homeport, Ponsonby refused to pay the crewmen the extra wages as he had promised. It was decided that although in the Stilk v. Myrick case the sailors were not entitled to the extra pay. The crew did stay on in the Hartley v. Ponsonby case were entitled to the extra payment. This is because of the desertion of so many crewmen compared to the desertion of two crewmen in Stilk v. Myrick. The offer by Ponsonby and acceptance by the crew can be seen as a new contract and therefore an entirely new contract providing …show more content…
The Master is liable to pay Bill Smith the 50% of his premium because there is consideration provided in his contract. The Master and TransPacific Shipping Co Ltd will receive a benefit for him returning in return for the promise of the payment to Smith.
The Anton’s Trawling co. Ltd (ATCL) v. Smith case where ATCL promises that if Smith could prove that there were larger stocks of orange roughly he would get a bonus of 10% of his wage. Smith did successfully prove that there were larger stocks. The issue raised here is whether or not there is no consideration for ATCL’s promise to Smith. It was held that the promise to give Smith the 10% was enforceable. In this case there was no economic duress or other policy factor that each party would have expected.
Therefore since Bill Smith had a choice to either travel back to Auckland or stay in Sanfransisco there was no element of economic duress. Consideration existed as a benefit occurred for Bill Smith and he should be owed the money, as he would lose the benefit of the payment if he did not receive the 50% bonus. However, since smith is doing something out of his contract it prove larger stocks he is owed the money, whereas Bill Smith is already obligated in his contract to go back to Auckland so this would not apply to the TransPacific shipping Co Ltd
Is Bill Smith shown consideration by the Master of Fair Weather? Is TransPacific shipping Co Ltd Legally liable to pay Smith the 50% premium for sailing back to New Zealand on the Fair Weather voyage?
Law
In order for consideration to be valid, either something must be given up from the promisee or the promisor must make a benefit from the offer. If this occurs there will be a legal contract between the two parties (Hubbard, Thomas & Varnham, 2013). If a contract already exists can an individual offer a new contract? A change in a contract means a change in the terms that were agreed and therefore the executory consideration must be adjusted. For the law of contract to occur an enforceable contract must be made.
Application
Hubbard, …show more content…
Ponsonby case, Hartley was contracted to a ship that was owned by Ponsonby. After docking, most of the ship’s crew abandoned the voyage. The captain promised the remaining crewmembers extra money if they worked on the ship and completed the voyage. When the ship arrived at the homeport, Ponsonby refused to pay the crewmen the extra wages as he had promised. It was decided that although in the Stilk v. Myrick case the sailors were not entitled to the extra pay. The crew did stay on in the Hartley v. Ponsonby case were entitled to the extra payment. This is because of the desertion of so many crewmen compared to the desertion of two crewmen in Stilk v. Myrick. The offer by Ponsonby and acceptance by the crew can be seen as a new contract and therefore an entirely new contract providing …show more content…
The Master is liable to pay Bill Smith the 50% of his premium because there is consideration provided in his contract. The Master and TransPacific Shipping Co Ltd will receive a benefit for him returning in return for the promise of the payment to Smith.
The Anton’s Trawling co. Ltd (ATCL) v. Smith case where ATCL promises that if Smith could prove that there were larger stocks of orange roughly he would get a bonus of 10% of his wage. Smith did successfully prove that there were larger stocks. The issue raised here is whether or not there is no consideration for ATCL’s promise to Smith. It was held that the promise to give Smith the 10% was enforceable. In this case there was no economic duress or other policy factor that each party would have expected.
Therefore since Bill Smith had a choice to either travel back to Auckland or stay in Sanfransisco there was no element of economic duress. Consideration existed as a benefit occurred for Bill Smith and he should be owed the money, as he would lose the benefit of the payment if he did not receive the 50% bonus. However, since smith is doing something out of his contract it prove larger stocks he is owed the money, whereas Bill Smith is already obligated in his contract to go back to Auckland so this would not apply to the TransPacific shipping Co Ltd