– Lower court ruled in favor of the fisherman.
– Alaska appealed and won.
– A group of fisherman had signed a contract agreeing to many things shipping from San Francisco to Alaska – under agreement, each fisherman was to receive $50 per person plus $.02 per fish caught…upon arrival in Alaska, the workers just stopped and demanded $100 for there services…
o Since it was impossible to get replacement workers, the super-intendant agreed to pay the larger amount.
o Upon coming back to San Francisco.
o After already entered an agreement, Alaska had no replacements, would have lost a lot of money, the fisherman absolutely refused to continue services that they were under contract for unless consent to be paid more money.
– Was the demand of $100 per person supported by sufficient consideration?
– Once you are legally bound to perform a contract, you cannot ask for more money in the middle of it if it is based on purely arbitrary demands. A person is already legally bound to a contract with the same performance required, thus it renders no consideration and void.
– There was no consideration because Alaska was paying extra money for services that the fishermen were already under contract for.
– The fisherman willfully and arbitrarily broke there agreement.
– There was no voluntary waiver on behalf of the appellant.
– Company had no idea of the change – the superintendent at pyramid harbor informed the fisherman that he had no power to change anything, but agreed nonetheless.
– Fishermen are already legally bound to perform.
– Allowing fisherman to recover would be to reward someone on bad faith.
– Reversed in favor of the fisherman.