▁has ▁been ▁distinguished ▁from ▁Williams ▁v ▁Ro ff ey ▁B ros ▁& ▁Nich oll s ▁( Contract ors ) ▁Ltd , ▁which ▁suggested ▁that ▁situations ▁formerly ▁handled ▁by ▁consideration ▁could ▁instead ▁be ▁handled ▁by ▁the ▁doctrine ▁of ▁economic ▁dur ess . ▁ ▁Fact s ▁St il k ▁was ▁contract ed ▁to ▁work ▁on ▁a ▁ship ▁owned ▁by ▁My rick ▁for ▁£ 5 ▁a ▁month , ▁prom ising ▁to ▁do ▁anything ▁needed ▁in ▁the ▁voyage ▁regardless ▁of ▁emer gen cies . ▁After ▁the ▁ship ▁dock ed ▁at ▁C ron stadt ▁two ▁men ▁desert ed , ▁and ▁after ▁failing ▁to ▁find ▁rep lac ements ▁the ▁captain ▁promised ▁the ▁crew ▁the ▁w ages ▁of ▁those ▁two ▁men ▁divided ▁between ▁them ▁if ▁they ▁ful filled ▁the ▁duties ▁of ▁the ▁missing ▁crew men ▁as ▁well ▁as ▁their ▁own . ▁After ▁arriv ing ▁at ▁their ▁home ▁port ▁the ▁captain ▁refused ▁to ▁pay ▁the ▁crew ▁the ▁money ▁he ▁had ▁promised ▁to ▁them . ▁ ▁The ▁defence , ▁represented ▁by ▁G arrow , ▁argued ▁that ▁the ▁agreement ▁between ▁the ▁captain ▁and ▁the ▁sail ors ▁or ▁se amen ▁▁ ▁was ▁contrary ▁to ▁public ▁policy , ▁and ▁utter ly ▁void . ▁In ▁West ▁India ▁voy ages , ▁cre ws ▁are ▁often ▁th inned ▁greatly ▁by ▁death ▁and ▁desert ion ; ▁and ▁if ▁a ▁promise ▁of ▁advanced ▁w ages ▁were ▁valid , ▁ex or bit ant ▁claims ▁would ▁be ▁set ▁up ▁on ▁all ▁such ▁occasions . ▁This ▁ground ▁was ▁strongly ▁taken ▁by ▁Lord ▁Ken y on ▁in ▁Harris ▁v ▁Watson , ▁Pe ak .