Consent CASES
In English law, consent refers to the voluntary agreement or permission given by a party, which can significantly affect the legality of actions and the enforceability of agreements.
Definition and principles
Consent must be informed, voluntary, and given freely without coercion, duress, or misrepresentation. Genuine consent is vital to the validity of contracts and certain defences in tort and criminal law.
Factors affecting genuine consent
- Duress: Consent obtained by threats or unlawful pressure is invalid.
- Undue influence: Exploiting a relationship of trust or dependency invalidates consent.
- Misrepresentation: False statements inducing consent can render it voidable.
- Mistake: Fundamental errors can undermine the reality of consent.
Case example: Barton v Armstrong (1973)
In Barton v Armstrong, the Privy Council ruled that consent to a contract is invalid if procured by threats or duress. Even if threats weren’t the sole reason for agreement, their presence sufficiently taints consent, making the contract voidable.
Legal effects of invalid consent
Invalid consent can lead to void or voidable contracts, allowing the affected party to rescind the agreement, claim damages, or seek other remedies depending on circumstances.
Practical importance
Consent remains critical in transactions, contracts, and legal defences, requiring parties to ensure clarity, fairness, and transparency in obtaining and recording consent.
Home » Consent
Appellants were a group of sado-masochistic homosexuals who willingly engaged in violent acts for sexual pleasure. The House of Lords held that their consent was no defence to charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, establishing limits on consensual violent activity. Facts The appellants were a group of adult homosexual men who, over a period of ten years, willingly and consensually participated in sado-masochistic acts in private. These activities involved acts of violence, including nailing a person’s penis to a board, branding with a hot wire, and beatings, all for the purpose of sexual gratification. The activities were recorded on
Facts Mr Barton was the managing director of a company, and Mr Armstrong was its chairman. Following a power struggle, Barton agreed to buy Armstrong’s shares in the company through the execution of several deeds. Barton subsequently sought a declaration that these deeds were void, alleging that he had been coerced into signing them by Armstrong’s threats to have him murdered. The trial judge found that Armstrong had indeed made death threats and that Barton had taken them seriously. However, the trial judge also found that Barton had entered into the agreement for what were considered sound business reasons, primarily
