APA v.

Domenico

Must have consideration to be legally enforceable

Like Jugenfeld the architect in lingenfelder v. bbrewing co, the packing company could have sued when
they stopped working for damages, but didnt, so that gives consideration to their claim

Pre-existing duty rule promise to preform a preexisting legal duty does not constitute consideration.

One sided modification

Role of superintendent, he was acting as an agent of APA

District court originally sided with the fisherman on the case, stating that the contract was validly
modified and there was no duress to prevent enforcement

Ninth circuit says there was no new consideration to validate the modification, and implied that the new
contract was made out of duress (the financial consequences that stemmed from the fishermans
breach of contract)

The question of nets with too large of holes

Threedy suggests that the fisherman may have really thought that the nets were a big problem,
and that could be a considerable reason why they striked for more money

This is like an honest belief that something has value when it may not, like the note in Haigh v Brooks

Generally held that a modification of a contract is itself a contract, which is unenforceable unless
supported by consideration.

The modern trend is, if both parties agree to a modification of contract, even if no consideration, the
modification should be enforced (p120)

The new consideration in this case- APA is providing 50 or 40 more dollars in exchange for services,
fisherman are doing the same work but for more detriment, e.g. they will likely catch less red salmon, or
believe they will catch less salmon with the larger holed nets, so will receive less benefit under their pay
scheme 2cents/ red salmon they help to catch

APA could have sued Domenico for breach of contract, but didnt, so that gives credence to the fact that
they were not under duress when signing new contract, they had real consideration to agree to novation
n59 Southern California Ry. Co. v. Rutherford, 62 F. 796, 798 (1894). Appeal court judge richer guy, known to be more on the side of big
business

no duress was found by both the district court and appellate court (they implied duress by their use of rhetoric)

The APA also had an incentive to sometimes catch less salmon, because it was an association that
wanted to regulate supply to keep prices high

1900 42 salmon canneries in Alaska, APA operated 18 of them. They were a large power that likely could
have secured more workers from elsewhere.
Pack from pyramid harbor was considered the choicest in Alaska this gives incentive to catch only
bigger and better fish

Pyramid harbor used gill nets, not seine nets or traps, workers made less than the average among other
APA canneries

If the nets were adequate, the inexperienced Italian fisherman still may have believed in good but
mistaken faith that they were not adequate

Cannery could only process so many fish, so cannery wanted some fish to be caught but not above what
they could process in time, as the excess would go bad but they would still have to pay the fisherman for
it.

APA could also purchase fish from local tribes if necessary

APA had better knowledge of the industry and a better legal team than the fishermen

Cannery had the alternative to purchase all their fish from local tribes, they could have easily not agreed
to novation

Need for the men as sailors they had only sailed up, not back yet, what are their promises and what is
the contract, explore this point further