Defences- Remedies – Coursework Example
The Defence of Consent Number Department The Defence of Consent The Board of Directors of Choc Delux has two defences: the defence of consent, which they could rely upon against criminal charges by the plaintiff and contributory negligence (McDonald, 2013; Pues, 2013). Through the defence, the company could defeat claims for actus reus (guilty actions) on their part in the packaging of the product by arguing that the consumer consented to the large box of chocolate upon receiving them (Herring, 2014). As Loveless (2012) has stated, she could have inspected the items and registered her complaints upon their delivery, but she did not, hence the application of contributory negligence against her. As Meadowcroft (2014) has stated, her injury was therefore the result of her consent and negligence in the reception of the goods. The supplier produces many other chocolate products and could have made a tolerable error because that was an isolated case.
Following the precedent set in the case of Morris v Murray  3 All ER 801, the doctrine of Volenti non fit injuria could apply in this case. According to the doctrine, whoever gives consent, would cushion the offeror from any subsequent liabilities subject to time limitations under The Limitation Act 1980 (Gordon, 2013; Rogers, 2014). The doctrine of consent as defence is applicable in this case and could provide partial defence for complimenting by contributory negligence. As Bijlani (2013) had stated, in the event that the court establishes that any of the following consent tests: (a) consent; b) agreement, and c) full knowledge of the risks, were not met in the case, the plaintiff could be entitled to damages arising from her loss of chance to host the TV show, the probability of a successful song and the reasonable losses of sale of her recordings.
Bijlani, C. 2013. Timely knowledge on negligence. Estates Gazette, 1339, pp.97-97.
Gordon, J.A. 2013. On the Indispensability of Consent to Politics: A Qualified Defense. A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 24(1), pp.30-54.
Herring, J. 2014. Criminal Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Loveless, J. 2012. Complete Criminal Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McDonald, G. K. 2013. The Question of Consent in Executive Benefits: Can Bankruptcy Courts Exercise the Judicial Power of the United States Under Article III Based on Litigant Consent Alone? American Bankruptcy Law Journal, 87(3), pp.271-304.
Meadowcroft, J. 2014. Exchange, unanimity and consent: a defence of the public choice account of power. Public Choice, 158(1/2, pp.85-100.
Pues, A. 2013. When Consent Is Not Enough: Gangs, Public Policy and Criminal Law in Germany. Journal of Criminal Law, 77(4), pp.296-298.
Rogers, C.L. 2014. Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent Decree. Federal Register, 79(49), pp.14279-14279.