Facts: Twenty-one seamen entered into a written contract with the Alaska Packer’s Association (APA) to sail from San Francisco to Pyramid Harbor, Alaska, where they would work as fisherman and sailors during the salmon-fishing season. The workers agreed to perform “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.” In return, the APA was to pay each worker $50 for the season, and two cents for each red salmon he caught. 

A few days after arriving at Pyramid Harbor, the men collectively stopped working and demanded an additional $50—or else they would return to San Francisco. At that point, it was impossible for the APA to replace them, so after several days of unproductive negotiations, the APA’s superintendent in Alaska yielded to their demands—and agreed to double their pay.

When they returned to San Francisco at the close of the fishing season, the seamen demanded their $100, but the APA refused, claiming that the Alaska agreement failed for lack of consideration. The lower court agreed with the seamen, but the APA appealed. 

Questions:

1. Was there consideration for the promise to pay more money?

2. What was the issue in this case? 

3. Did the court find that it was? If not, why not?

4. Why do you think the seamen agreed to the contract, but waited until they were on site in Alaska to make their demands?