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 |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) (Added opinion authorship and comments) |
||
(6 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|date=May 26, 1902 | |date=May 26, 1902 | ||
|subject=Contracts | |subject=Contracts | ||
|appealed_from=Northern District of California | |||
|Court_opinion_parts={{Court opinion part | |||
|opinion_type=majority | |||
|opinion_order=1 | |||
|written_by=Ross | |||
|joined_by= | |||
}} | |||
|facts=Commercial fishing is a dangerous line of work. | |facts=Commercial fishing is a dangerous line of work. | ||
Line 11: | Line 18: | ||
$50 + $0.02/salmon. | $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! | All of a sudden in May 1900, the fisherman stopped working altogether. They demanded a base payment of $100! | ||
Line 17: | Line 28: | ||
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. | 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 [https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ northern district of California]. | |||
The | The district court ruled for the fisherman ("Domenico") to get $100 each. | ||
|issues=Is a new contract between parties to an earlier contract ''on the same subject'' enforceable if the new contract calls for 1 party to do ''nothing additional or different'' from the earlier contract? | |||
|holding=No. A new contract between parties to an earlier 1 on the same subject is ''un-enforceable'', if the new contract requires ''nothing new or different'' from 1 party. | |||
|reasons=The fishermen 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. | |||
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. | |||
|comments=The fishermen, without any valid cause, absolutely refused to do their work that they contracted for unless APA consented to pay more money | |||
* The demand for more pay under the circumstances was without consideration→ APA gained nothing more from the new agreements – basic contractual objection is no additional consideration | |||
* Fishermen willfully and arbitrarily broke the original agreements→ they should have been liable to APA for damages | |||
* No voluntary waiver on the part of APA for breach of the original contracts | |||
* Superintendent also explicitly informed the fishermen he had no authority to modify or enter into contracts | |||
* ''King v. Railway Co.'' (MN 1902) | |||
** A party who refuses to perform and coerces a promise from the other party for increased compensation takes an unjustifiable advantage of the necessities of the other party→this promise cannot be legally enforced | |||
* ''Ligenfelder v. Brewing Co.'' (MO 1891) | |||
** Court voided a contract of which the building owner agreed to pay its architect an additional sum b/c of the architect’s refusal to otherwise proceed | |||
** Architect extorted necessities; promise is not valid → permitting him to recover for building owner’s nonpayment would be to offer a premium upon bad faith; invites violating contracts | |||
|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 |
Latest revision as of 15:18, July 19, 2023
Alaska Packers v. Domenico | |
Court | 9th Circuit |
---|---|
Citation | 117 F. 99 |
Date decided | May 26, 1902 |
Appealed from | Northern District of California |
Case Opinions | |
majority | written by Ross |
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.Comments
The fishermen, without any valid cause, absolutely refused to do their work that they contracted for unless APA consented to pay more money
- The demand for more pay under the circumstances was without consideration→ APA gained nothing more from the new agreements – basic contractual objection is no additional consideration
- Fishermen willfully and arbitrarily broke the original agreements→ they should have been liable to APA for damages
- No voluntary waiver on the part of APA for breach of the original contracts
- Superintendent also explicitly informed the fishermen he had no authority to modify or enter into contracts
- King v. Railway Co. (MN 1902)
- A party who refuses to perform and coerces a promise from the other party for increased compensation takes an unjustifiable advantage of the necessities of the other party→this promise cannot be legally enforced
- Ligenfelder v. Brewing Co. (MO 1891)
- Court voided a contract of which the building owner agreed to pay its architect an additional sum b/c of the architect’s refusal to otherwise proceed
- Architect extorted necessities; promise is not valid → permitting him to recover for building owner’s nonpayment would be to offer a premium upon bad faith; invites violating contracts