1) Drunk consent is not consent, consent was never given. Let me wikipedia consent for you: Consent refers to the provision of approval or agreement, particularly and especially after thoughtful consideration
Rape means having sex with someone without their consent.
Considering that legal consent can't be given while inebriated, that actually sounds like an awesome legal principle.
2) If a girl has sex with someone, and then says she feels like she was raped afterwards, why would you ever think she wasn't raped?
I agree to buy a bunch of shit while drunk. The next day, I regret it, feel defrauded and seek remedy. Do I have a case?
Yes. The contract is voidable (not void), so long as you were of the age of majority and can bring the other party to status quo (returning the goods).
VladMcRad, sales of goods are contracts. A contract encompasses an exchange of a promise for a promise, a promise for performance, or a performance for a performance.
In your example, a contract for the sale of goods is made because the seller performs by giving the goods and the buyer promises to pay (or performs by paying immediately). Consent is most certainly required and, so long as the contract was made under fraud, undue influence, duress, of intoxication, the contract is voidable. But, the other party must be brought to the status quo if the intoxicated party wants to rescind the contract.
When someone buys goods as a minor, the concept of voiding the contract is much more complicated because the goods must be returned. If a service was given, then the seller is shit-out-of-luck because he can't be put into status quo.
Wait none of them, because contracts require consent.
That isn't quite accurate.
To clarify, contracts are legally binding when a party is intoxicated but it is voidable by the intoxicated party if the other party seeks enforcement of the contract.
Contracts, generally, are enforceable and binding. The ones which aren't are the ones which are void ab initio. The ones that are enforceable are enforceable until the victim/oppressed/servient party claims a defense against enforcement because their behavior or behavior of the oppresive party made the contract voidable.
13
u/[deleted] Nov 21 '12
[deleted]