sledger
Spanish_Vicente
Person A tells Person B that if they have *** with them, Person A will pay Person B £100.
Person B agrees to have *** with Person A on this basis, and consents.
*** is had, but upon conclusion Person A refuses to pay Person B the money.
Person B then claims that their consent was induced by way of a misrepresentation, which vitiates the consent that had previously been given. By virtue of there being no consent, the sexual intercourse that occurred was therefore rape.
In this situation, the law in the UK is very clear. This would not be rape, as although the consent was acquired by way of a misrepresentation, there was no deception as to the nature of the act. Person B was not, for instance, deceived as to what was to happen (i.e. sexual intercourse), nor was Person B deceived as to the identity of Person A.
But is this right?
Person B agrees to have *** with Person A on this basis, and consents.
*** is had, but upon conclusion Person A refuses to pay Person B the money.
Person B then claims that their consent was induced by way of a misrepresentation, which vitiates the consent that had previously been given. By virtue of there being no consent, the sexual intercourse that occurred was therefore rape.
In this situation, the law in the UK is very clear. This would not be rape, as although the consent was acquired by way of a misrepresentation, there was no deception as to the nature of the act. Person B was not, for instance, deceived as to what was to happen (i.e. sexual intercourse), nor was Person B deceived as to the identity of Person A.
But is this right?