Alaska Packers’ Association v. Domenico, 117 F. 99 (1902).
Facts:
Parties: Alaska Packers’, defendant-appellant; Domenico, plaintiff-appellee.
Alaska Packers’ hired plaintiffs to do fishing work at a set rate at a certain remote location.
Upon arriving at the location, plaintiffs refused to work unless they were given more.
Defendant was pressured into agreeing to sign a new contract at a higher rate with plaintiffs.
Upon completion of the work, defendants refused to pay and plaintiffs sued.
Plaintiffs won; defendants appealed.
Issues:
Whether work agreed on in one contract constitutes as consideration for a second contract
formed solely to modify the first.
Rationale:
The plaintiffs claimed that they were given defective nets.
The court disagreed, stating that for the defendants to do so would violate self-interest.
The plaintiffs claimed that the contract signed in the remote location was a new contract.
The court disagreed, stating that the plaintiffs already owed the defendants a legal duty (fishing
work in a remote location) in the first contract.
The court stated that the new contract tried to use the legal duty already owed the plaintiffs as
its consideration.
The court stated that a new contract formed just for the purpose of modifying the old contract
had no consideration if it purported to use a legal duty already owed under the old contract as
its consideration.
Disposition: The court reversed the decision of the appellate court and remanded the case with
judgment for the respondent.
Holding:
The second contract had no consideration and was thus void because it purported to use a legal
duty already owed under the first contract as its consideration.
Rule: There is no consideration for a contract created solely to modify an existing contract and whose
purported consideration is work done for the first contract.
