No, the "judge" applied the law incorrectly. 

Under contract law, any contract the victim signed in her highly drunken state would be invalid because she was not "mentally sound" at the time.

So in this case, the judge is holding a contract (such as buying a new refrigerator) to a higher standard than sexual congress. Which is plainly absurd. 

Also, this ruling creates the legal precedent that any highly intoxicated person (male or female) can be raped at anytime and its perfectly legal, because there is possibility they may have consented.  The only requirement is that the rapist has to claim the victim consented.

Moreover, being intoxicated doesn't mean you forfeit all your civil rights.