This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org
Alaska Packers v. Domenico: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
|reasons=The fisherman exploited the vulnerability of the 1 party to obtain more favorable terms. There was no new consideration for $100/fisherman. | |reasons=The fisherman exploited the vulnerability of the 1 party to obtain more favorable terms. There was no new consideration for $100/fisherman. | ||
|rule=An enforceable contract requires [[Contracts/Consideration|consideration]] on both sides. | |rule=An enforceable contract requires [[Contracts/Consideration|consideration]] on both sides. | ||
However, for the sale of goods, the Article 2 of [[Contracts/Uniform Commercial Code|UCC]] validates good-faith contract modifications even without a new consideration. | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/4104264/117-f-99.html | |link=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/4104264/117-f-99.html |
Revision as of 16:08, July 18, 2023
Alaska Packers v. Domenico | |
Court | 9th Circuit |
---|---|
Citation | 117 F. 99 |
Date decided | May 26, 1902 |
Appealed from | Northern District of California |
Facts
Commercial fishing is a dangerous line of work.
In March 1900, some fishermen contracted with Alaska Packers' Association (APA) to man a fishing boat for the salmon season. The boat would depart from San Francisco, catch salmons, deliver the catch at APA's Alaska cannery, & return to San Francisco.
APA would pay each fisherman
$50 + $0.02/salmon.
The following month, more fisherman joined to receive
$60 + $0.02/salmon
All of a sudden in May 1900, the fisherman stopped working altogether. They demanded a base payment of $100!
APA was in a bind: the salmon season was exceedingly short & the fishing waters were remote.
The superintendent was forced to execute a $100/fisherman contract after which the fishermen resumed work. Nevertheless, the superintendent paid them according to the original contract once the work was completed.Procedural History
The fisherman (sailors represented by Domenico) sued Alaska Packers’ Association (APA) (defendants) for breach of contract in the U.S. district court for the northern district of California.
The district court ruled for the fisherman ("Domenico") to get $100 each.Issues
Holding
Reasons
Rule
An enforceable contract requires consideration on both sides.
However, for the sale of goods, the Article 2 of UCC validates good-faith contract modifications even without a new consideration.