Alaska Packers' Association v. Domenico vs. Angel v. Murray
A side-by-side comparison of two landmark contracts cases
Alaska Packers' Association v. Domenico
117 F. 99 (9th Cir. 1902) (1902)
Holding
The court held that the modification was unenforceable because the workers provided no new or additional consideration for the promised wage increase. They were already obligated to perform the fishing work under their original contracts, and a promise to do what one is already bound to do does not constitute consideration for a new promise. The superintendent's agreement to higher wages was obtained under economic duress and was therefore voidable.
Doctrine Established
Pre-Existing Duty Rule
Angel v. Murray
113 R.I. 482, 322 A.2d 630 (1974) (1974)
Holding
The court held that the contract modification was enforceable despite the absence of additional consideration, because it was voluntarily made in response to unanticipated circumstances (the unexpected increase in dwelling units) and was fair and equitable. The court adopted the Restatement (Second) of Contracts Section 89 approach, which recognizes that modifications are binding when made in good faith in response to changed circumstances not anticipated at the time of the original agreement.
Doctrine Established
Fair and Equitable Modification Exception to Pre-Existing Duty Rule
Comparison Analysis
Alaska Packers Association v. Domenico (1902) and Angel v. Murray (1974) both address the pre-existing duty rule -- the principle that performing an obligation one is already bound to perform cannot serve as consideration for a new promise. Alaska Packers applied the rule strictly, holding that fishermen who stopped work in Alaska and demanded higher wages could not enforce the employer's promise to pay more because they were merely agreeing to do what they were already contractually obligated to do. Angel v. Murray adopted the modern exception, holding that a modification to a refuse collection contract was enforceable because it was fair, voluntary, and prompted by unanticipated circumstances (unexpected growth in housing units).
The pre-existing duty rule serves the important purpose of preventing coercion: without it, a party could refuse to perform and extract a higher price from the other party who has no practical alternative (as the fishermen arguably did in Alaska Packers, threatening to stop work in remote Alaska where replacement workers were unavailable). However, rigid application of the rule can also prevent legitimate modifications when both parties genuinely agree that changed circumstances warrant different terms.
Angel v. Murray represents the modern trend, reflected in UCC Section 2-209 (which abolishes the pre-existing duty rule for sales of goods, requiring only good faith for modifications) and the Restatement (Second) Section 89 (which allows enforcement of modifications that are fair and equitable in view of circumstances not anticipated when the contract was made). Students must understand both the traditional rule (Alaska Packers) and the modern exceptions to analyze modification questions accurately. The critical factors are whether the modification was coerced, whether unanticipated circumstances prompted it, and whether it was voluntarily agreed to by both parties.
Similarities
- Both involve attempts to modify an existing contract by promising additional compensation for the same or similar performance
- Both require the court to determine whether the modification is supported by consideration or falls within an exception to the pre-existing duty rule
- Both address the tension between enforcing the original bargain and allowing legitimate contract modifications
- Both are leading cases taught to illustrate the pre-existing duty rule and its evolution
Differences
- Alaska Packers applied the pre-existing duty rule strictly and refused to enforce the modification, while Angel v. Murray adopted the modern exception and enforced it
- In Alaska Packers, the modification was arguably coerced (workers stopped work in remote Alaska with no alternatives), while in Angel v. Murray, the modification was voluntarily agreed to without coercion
- Angel v. Murray identified unanticipated circumstances (unexpected housing growth) that justified the modification, while Alaska Packers found no legitimate basis for the workers' demands
- Alaska Packers represents the traditional common law approach, while Angel v. Murray follows the modern Restatement (Second) Section 89 approach
- The power dynamics differ: in Alaska Packers, the promisee held the employer over a barrel; in Angel v. Murray, the city council voluntarily approved the additional payments
Why This Comparison Matters
Modification questions are common on Contracts exams. The standard approach is: (1) identify that the pre-existing duty rule would normally bar enforcement; (2) determine whether any exception applies -- new consideration, unanticipated circumstances under Restatement Section 89, or UCC Section 2-209's good faith requirement for goods. The critical factual inquiry is whether the modification was coerced or was a genuine adjustment to changed circumstances. Students should also note that rescission and re-formation of the contract can sometimes circumvent the pre-existing duty rule entirely.
More Contracts Comparisons
Hadley v. Baxendale vs. Hawkins v. McGee
Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) and Hawkins v. McGee (1929) are both foundational cases on contract damages, but they address different aspects of the remedies framework. Hadley established the foreseeability limitation on consequential damages, holding that a breaching party is liable only for damages that were reasonably foreseeable at the time of contract formation -- either arising naturally from the breach or within the contemplation of both parties due to special circumstances communicated at formation. Hawkins v. McGee ('the hairy hand case') established the expectation damages measure, holding that the proper remedy for breach puts the plaintiff in the position they would have occupied had the contract been performed.
Lucy v. Zehmer vs. Raffles v. Wichelhaus
Lucy v. Zehmer (1954) and Raffles v. Wichelhaus (1864) are both seminal cases on mutual assent and the role of subjective intent in contract formation, but they reach opposite conclusions about when a valid contract exists. Lucy held that a contract existed for the sale of a farm even though the seller claimed he was joking, because the objective manifestations of intent -- signing a written agreement, discussing terms over an extended period, involving the seller's wife -- indicated a serious transaction. Raffles held that no contract existed for the sale of cotton to arrive on the ship 'Peerless' because there were two ships named Peerless and each party had a different ship in mind, creating a latent ambiguity that prevented mutual assent.
Hamer v. Sidway vs. Mills v. Wyman
Hamer v. Sidway (1891) and Mills v. Wyman (1825) both involve promises made in recognition of some prior or existing relationship, but they reach different conclusions about whether the promises are supported by sufficient consideration. Hamer held that an uncle's promise to pay his nephew $5,000 if the nephew refrained from drinking, smoking, and gambling until age 21 was supported by consideration, because the nephew's forbearance from legal activities constituted a legal detriment. Mills held that a father's promise to pay a Good Samaritan who had cared for his sick adult son was not enforceable because the care had already been rendered before the promise was made -- past consideration is not consideration.
Taylor v. Caldwell vs. Krell v. Henry
Taylor v. Caldwell (1863) and Krell v. Henry (1903) are the foundational English cases establishing the doctrines of impossibility and frustration of purpose, respectively. Taylor held that when a music hall was destroyed by fire before the date of a scheduled concert, the contract was discharged because its performance had become impossible through no fault of either party. The implied condition that the hall would continue to exist failed, excusing both parties from their obligations. Krell extended this reasoning to situations where performance remains physically possible but the entire purpose of the contract has been frustrated by an unforeseen event -- specifically, the cancellation of King Edward VII's coronation procession, which eliminated the reason the defendant had rented an apartment overlooking the parade route.