--- title: "Alaska Packers' Association v. Domenico" type: Landmark Case source: https://casebriefly.com/landmark-cases/alaska-packers-association-v-domenico --- # Alaska Packers' Association v. Domenico Alaska Packers' Association v. Domenico is a foundational case on the pre-existing duty rule, establishing that a promise to pay more for performance of a duty one is already contractually obligated to perform is not supported by consideration and is therefore unenforceable. The case illustrates the problem of contractual modifications procured through economic duress or opportunistic holdup and remains a central teaching case on consideration in contract modification. ## Citation 117 F. 99 (9th Cir. 1902) ## Year 1902 ## Court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ## Facts A group of fishermen and sailors contracted with Alaska Packers' Association to travel from San Francisco to Alaska to work catching and canning salmon for a stated wage. After arriving in Alaska, the workers stopped working and demanded higher wages, threatening to remain idle for the entire fishing season unless their pay was increased. The superintendent, with no ability to hire replacements in the remote location, agreed to the higher wages under protest. Upon the workers' return to San Francisco, the company refused to pay the increased wages. ## Procedural History The workers sued in federal court to recover the promised higher wages. The trial court found for the workers. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the modification lacked consideration because the workers were already obligated to perform the same work under their original contracts. ## Issue Whether a promise to pay additional compensation for performance of duties that the promisee is already contractually obligated to perform is enforceable for lack of new consideration. ## 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. ## Reasoning The court applied the pre-existing duty rule, reasoning that a modification of an existing contract must be supported by new consideration from the party seeking additional compensation. The workers offered nothing new beyond what they were already obligated to provide under the original agreement. The court rejected the argument that the workers' resumption of work constituted new consideration, finding that they had never been legally released from their obligation. The court also emphasized the coercive circumstances: the workers knew the company could not hire replacements in remote Alaska during the fishing season, and they exploited this vulnerability to extract higher wages. The court noted that enforcing such modifications would undermine the stability of contracts and reward opportunistic behavior. ## Impact Alaska Packers became the definitive case on the pre-existing duty rule and has been cited in countless cases involving contract modifications. While the rule has been modified by UCC Section 2-209 (which eliminates the consideration requirement for modifications of goods contracts) and the Restatement (Second) Section 89 (which allows enforcement of fair and equitable modifications made in light of changed circumstances), the pre-existing duty rule remains the default rule for non-goods contracts. The case also contributed to the development of the economic duress doctrine. ## Key Quotes - The promise of the defendant... to pay the libelants more than they had contracted for, merely for doing that which they were already obligated to do, was not a new consideration. - No astute reasoning can change the plain fact that the party who refuses to perform, and thereby coerces a promise from the other party to the contract to pay him an increased compensation for doing that which he is legally bound to do, takes an unjustifiable advantage of the necessities of the other party. - Consent to such a demand, under such circumstances, if given, was, in our opinion, without consideration. ## Related Cases - angel-v-murray - hamer-v-sidway - mills-v-wyman - webb-v-mcgowin - wood-v-lucy-lady-duff-gordon ## Exam Relevance Alaska Packers is tested on virtually every Contracts exam covering consideration and contract modification. Exam questions typically present scenarios where one party demands more money for the same performance and ask whether the modification is enforceable. Students must identify the pre-existing duty rule, consider whether any exception applies (UCC 2-209, Restatement Section 89, or new/different consideration), and discuss economic duress. ## Study Tips - Master the pre-existing duty rule: a promise to perform an existing contractual obligation is not consideration for a new promise from the other party. - Know the exceptions: (1) UCC Section 2-209 eliminates the consideration requirement for good-faith modifications of goods contracts; (2) Restatement Section 89 allows enforcement of modifications that are fair and equitable in light of unanticipated circumstances. - Compare with Angel v. Murray, where the court enforced a modification under changed circumstances, to understand when the pre-existing duty rule is relaxed. - Identify the duress element: the workers' threat to stop working in a remote location where replacements were unavailable is a classic example of economic duress or holdup. ## Doctrine Established Pre-Existing Duty Rule --- Source: [Alaska Packers' Association v. Domenico — CaseBriefly](https://casebriefly.com/landmark-cases/alaska-packers-association-v-domenico)