Hartley v Ponsonby [1857] 7 EL BL 872; 119

ER 1471

Hartley,the plaintiff was contracted to team a ship claimed by Ponsonby who is the
litigant and was commanded of a ship.A contract was signed for a maximum of three
years which the mariners had to serve on board the ship in this period to any ports
required until her arrival to the UK. While the ship was sailing on the sea, seventeen out
of the sum 37 mariners left the crew, and just six of the rest of the men were able to sail
the ship. The ship was left in a substantially more hazardous condition by the diminished
amount of crew members. The remaining crew has persuaded by the commander to sail
the ship by promising them additional wages once the ship docked. Ponsonby wouldn't
pay the mariners the additional wages he had guaranteed when the ship returned to the
UK. The plaintiff sued for breach of contract.

Lord Campbell CJ said that Harris v Weston was authority that if there is an emergency, a
sailor is expected to finish a voyage ,for example, a large segment of the crew being
washed overboard. However, there was no such accident here. The ship was in port and
was only unseaworthy because of the inadequate crewmembers. So, the plaintiff was
within his rights to reject to put to sea. As a consequence, the plaintiff provided fresh
consideration by agreeing to do the work. Therefore, the contract was valid.

Beside, Lord Campbell CJ decided that although Stilk v Myrick [1809] EWHC KB J58 aid
that mariners were not qualified for extra pay for satisfying an obligation effectively
required by a current contract, they were in this situation. The abandonment of such a
large number of crew members (contrasted with the renunciation of two crew members
in Stilk v Myrick) changed the idea of the rest of the mariners' obligations to the point
where the agreement could be viewed as released. Thus, the offer by Ponsonby to pay
the crew to sail back and the acceptance by the crew could be considered an entirely
new contract by providing valid consideration.