Alaska Packers Assn. v. Domenico

Case brief: template

Case name:	Alaska Packers Assn. v. Domenico
Court:	U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Citation; Date:	117 F. 99 (1902)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Trial court:		Appeal court (for appeal cases only):
Plaintiff:	Alaska Packers Assn. - workers	Appellant:	Domenico
Defendant:	Domenico - packer	Respondent:	Alaska Packers Assn.

Facts of the case:
The evidence shows without conflict that on March 26, 1900, at the city and county of San Francisco, the libelants entered into a written contract with the appellant, whereby they agreed to go from San Francisco to Pyramid Harbor, Alaska, and return, on board such vessel as might be designated by the appellant, and to work for the appellant during the fishing season of 1900, at Pyramid Harbor, as sailors and fishermen, agreeing to do "regular ship's duty, both up and down, discharging and loading; and to do any other work whatsoever when requested to do so by the captain or agent of the Alaska Packers' Association." By the terms of this agreement, the appellant was to pay each of the libelants $50 for the season, and two cents for each red salmon in the catching of which he took part. the libelants sailed on board the Two Brothers for Pyramid Harbor, where the appellant had about $150,000 invested in a salmon cannery. The libelants arrived there early in April of the year mentioned, and began to unload the vessel and fit up the cannery. A few days thereafter, to wit, May 19th, they stopped work in a body, and demanded of the company's superintendent there in charge $100 for services in operating the vessel to and from Pyramid Harbor, instead of the sums stipulated for in and by the contracts; stating that unless they were paid this additional wage they would stop work entirely, and return to San Francisco. The evidence showed, and the court below found, that it was impossible for the appellant to get other men to take the places of the libelants, the place being remote, the season short and just opening; so that, after endeavoring for several days without success to induce the libelants to proceed with their work in accordance with their contracts, the company's superintendent, on the 22d day of May, so far yielded to their demands the superintendent, however, testifying that he at the time told the libelants that he was without authority to enter into any such contract, or to in any way alter the contracts made between them and the company in San Francisco. Upon the return of the libelants to San Francisco at the close of the fishing season, they demanded pay in accordance with the terms of the alleged contract of May 22d, when the company denied its validity, and refused to pay other than as provided for by the contracts of March 26th and April 5th, respectively. On the trial in the court below, the libelants undertook to show that the fishing nets provided by the respondent were defective, and that it was on that account that they demanded increased wages. On that point, the evidence was substantially conflicting, and the finding of the court was against the libelants,

Remedy sought:

Court opinion (including key issues and arguments):
lower court: success depended on the profits defendant would be able to realize that season from its packing plant, and the large capital invested therein. In view of this selfevident fact, it is highly improbable that the defendant gave libelants rotten and unserviceable nets with which to fish. The real questions in the case as brought here are questions of law, and, in the view that we take of the case, it will be necessary to consider but one of those. Assuming that the appellant's superintendent at Pyramid Harbor was authorized to make the alleged contract of May 22d, and that he executed it on behalf of the appellant, was it supported by a sufficient consideration? ... Consent to such a demand, under such circumstances, if given, was, in our opinion, without consideration, for the reason that it was based solely upon the libelants' agreement to render the exact services, and none other, that they were already under contract to render. The case shows that they willfully and arbitrarily broke that obligation. As a matter of course, they were liable to the appellant in damages, and it is quite probable, as suggested by the court below in its opinion, that they may have been unable to respond in damages. To permit plaintiff to recover under such circumstances would be to offer a premium upon bad faith, and invite men to violate their most sacred contracts that they may profit by their own wrong. That a promise to pay a man for doing that which he is already under contract to do is without consideration is conceded by respondents.

Disposition of case:
the finding of the court was against the libelants (AlaskaPackers--the plaintiffs in a maritime court) the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to the court below to enter judgment for the respondent, with costs. It is so ordered.

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE CASE

Efficiency/incentive issues discussed in the court opinion:

Other efficiency/incentive issues relevant to the case:

Assessment of the economic consequences of the court decision:

COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS 1. Goebel v. Linn (included in this folio), a finding held in low esteem in the Alaska Packers court, could have been viewed as a commercial impracticability plea had that doctrine been extant in 1888. Is there an analogous "commercial impracticability" dimension of this case? What about those allegedly rotten nets? Had they been conclusively shown to be rotten, would there have been any basis for hope that Domenico and his fellow libelants would have been able to realize their earnings expectations under the earlier contracts? "Libel," incidentally, is a term used to describe a complaint filed in a maritime law court, where the several Alaska Packers cases which arose out of the Pyramid Harbor episode were heard. 2. Did you note the explicitly economic argument employed by the lower court judge and quoted by Judge Ross in his dismissal of the plausibility of the claim that the nets were rotten? (Only a stupid employer would hire men to go to the end of the world and expect them to catch fish profitably with rotten nets.) 3. Be sure to note the exact parallels between Alaska Packers and of Austin Instrument v. Loral Corporation, the next case.