Alaska Packers’ Association v. Domenico case brief summary
117 F. 99
SYNOPSIS:
Appellant company challenged the judgment of the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California, in a case where libelants, fishermen, brought suit against appellant, alleging that appellant had contracted to pay them higher wages.
OVERVIEW: Libelants, fishermen, contracted with appellant company to sail from San Francisco to Alaska and work for appellant during the fishing season. When the ship arrived in Alaska, libelants demanded higher wages than were provided for in the contract; libelants stated that they would not work unless they were paid additional wages. A supervisor for appellant agreed to the demand and executed an altered contract, compelled by the remote location and difficulty of finding replacement workers. When libelants returned to San Francisco, appellant denied the validity of the later contract.
HOLDING:
The court held that the later contract was not supported by adequate consideration because it was based solely on libelants' agreement to render the exact services that they were already obligated to perform.
ANALYSIS:
When parties did what they were already contractually obligated to do, they could not demand additional compensation.
OUTCOME: The court held that the contract was not supported by adequate consideration because it was based solely on libelants' agreement to render the exact services that they were already obligated to perform.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
117 F. 99
SYNOPSIS:
Appellant company challenged the judgment of the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California, in a case where libelants, fishermen, brought suit against appellant, alleging that appellant had contracted to pay them higher wages.
OVERVIEW: Libelants, fishermen, contracted with appellant company to sail from San Francisco to Alaska and work for appellant during the fishing season. When the ship arrived in Alaska, libelants demanded higher wages than were provided for in the contract; libelants stated that they would not work unless they were paid additional wages. A supervisor for appellant agreed to the demand and executed an altered contract, compelled by the remote location and difficulty of finding replacement workers. When libelants returned to San Francisco, appellant denied the validity of the later contract.
HOLDING:
The court held that the later contract was not supported by adequate consideration because it was based solely on libelants' agreement to render the exact services that they were already obligated to perform.
ANALYSIS:
When parties did what they were already contractually obligated to do, they could not demand additional compensation.
OUTCOME: The court held that the contract was not supported by adequate consideration because it was based solely on libelants' agreement to render the exact services that they were already obligated to perform.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment