• To celebrate the release of Halo: The Master Chief Collection on Steam, Xbox Games Studios has provided 5 Steam copies of the game and 5 Xbox One copies of the game! We will be giving these away in the Gaming Giveaways |OT|. Some Steam copies will also be given away to the PC Gaming Era community.
  • An old favorite feature returns: Q&ERA is back! This time we'll be collecting questions for Remedy Entertainment, makers of Max Payne, Alan Wake, Quantum Break, and Control. Members can submit questions for the next 5 days, 15 hours, 44 minutes, 27 seconds. Submissions will close on Dec 12, 2019 at 12:00 AM.

In The Little Mermaid, Ursula wasn't evil at all. The contract was legal and fair...

What do you think?

  • Ariel was dumb. Ursula did nothing wrong.

    Votes: 146 19.3%
  • Ursula is pure evil. The contract wasn't legal.

    Votes: 185 24.5%
  • Ursula is pure evil, but the contract is legal.

    Votes: 425 56.2%

  • Total voters
    756

FernandoRocker

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
4,515
México
Ursula prizes Ariel’s voice. Ursula knows that the freedom of expression, the right to have one’s opinion heard, and the power of communication are valuable things. On the other hand, Ariel is willing to be silenced in exchange for physical alteration,.

Ursula obtains her power legally. Unlike Disney’s other villains whose plans involved illegitimate means, Ursula received the Trident as consideration pursuant to a contract. She had played by the rules, and in return, she was impaled in her Cecaelian gut by an emasculated and character-less prince!
 

TeddieBear

Member
Sep 14, 2019
367
Ursula prizes Ariel’s voice. Ursula knows that the freedom of expression, the right to have one’s opinion heard, and the power of communication are valuable things. On the other hand, Ariel is willing to be silenced in exchange for physical alteration,.

Ursula obtains her power legally. Unlike Disney’s other villains whose plans involved illegitimate means, Ursula received the Trident as consideration pursuant to a contract. She had played by the rules, and in return, she was impaled in her Cecaelian gut by an emasculated and character-less prince!
Didn’t she actively try to stop Ariel from marrying Eric?
 
OP
OP
FernandoRocker

FernandoRocker

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
4,515
México
Didn’t she actively try to stop Ariel from marrying Eric?
The Contract does not contain a duty to act in good faith.

Ariel is dealing with a renown sea-witch. She cannot expect a sea-witch to act in good faith. Ursula, in her wiliness, might have said “Oh, of course!” when asked whether she would act in good faith, but Ariel certainly would not have said so.
 

Nairume

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,670
The Contract does not contain a duty to act in good faith.

Ariel is dealing with a renown sea-witch. She cannot expect a sea-witch to act in good faith. Ursula, in her wiliness, might have said “Oh, of course!” when asked whether she would act in good faith, but Ariel certainly would not have said so.
So you are arguing that somebody who is to be expected to act in poor faith and abuse a contract made with a minor not capable of understanding the terms of the contract isn't evil.
 

Sandfox

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,617
The Contract does not contain a duty to act in good faith.

Ariel is dealing with a renown sea-witch. She cannot expect a sea-witch to act in good faith. Ursula, in her wiliness, might have said “Oh, of course!” when asked whether she would act in good faith, but Ariel certainly would not have said so.
You're claiming that Ursula wasn't evil and now your saying Ariel shouldn't have expected her to not be evil?
 

Ryan.

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
5,142
The Contract does not contain a duty to act in good faith.

Ariel is dealing with a renown sea-witch. She cannot expect a sea-witch to act in good faith. Ursula, in her wiliness, might have said “Oh, of course!” when asked whether she would act in good faith, but Ariel certainly would not have said so.
So she's evil
 

deimosmasque

Member
Apr 22, 2018
1,896
Tampa, Fl
The Contract does not contain a duty to act in good faith.

Ariel is dealing with a renown sea-witch. She cannot expect a sea-witch to act in good faith. Ursula, in her wiliness, might have said “Oh, of course!” when asked whether she would act in good faith, but Ariel certainly would not have said so.
Okay then Ursala is evil. She had a legal contract but acted in bad faith.
 

Dishwalla

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
10,080
Boise, Idaho
also Ursula didn't take Ariel's voice for freedom of expression or whatever you are trying to claim, she took it in order to use Ariel as a bargaining chip over King Tritan. Her whole goal was to find a way to have the king give her what she wanted, and Ariel and her voice were a means to accomplish that. Seems pretty evil to me.
 

Verelios

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,442
The contract was technically legal, but I think any self-respecting judge would throw it out based on predatory business.
 

Kino

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,174
The Contract does not contain a duty to act in good faith.

Ariel is dealing with a renown sea-witch. She cannot expect a sea-witch to act in good faith. Ursula, in her wiliness, might have said “Oh, of course!” when asked whether she would act in good faith, but Ariel certainly would not have said so.
Victim blaming much? Do you think drug dealers who sell to kids are also doing nothing wrong?
 

CenturionNami

Member
Nov 2, 2017
2,796
Isn't Ursula a literal child predator? She wanted to take advantage of Ariel's naivety.

And all things considered, Tritan isn't an awful father. By Greek/Roman God's standards, he's pretty decent.
 

Keio

Member
Nov 5, 2017
83
I think this thread explains why our capitalism fails. You cannot put legality of a predatory contract in front of the morality of Ursula’s practices which clearly show she just exploited a poor girl in an evil way. Legality does not make evil right.

Plus we can’t know if the contract was legal at the time in Denmark since we have no access to laws of that time.

Totally clears the sea-witch. Thank you!
Perfect.
 

Nairume

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,670
Also the contract itself has been analyzed by a commercial lawyer to show that it wasn't a legit contract that could be enforced

 
Nov 11, 2017
15
Ursula broke the contract first by sending her henchmen to mess with Ariel and Erik and then further by impersonating Ariel, using her voice and hypnotizing him.
 

TheBryanJZX90

Member
Nov 29, 2017
1,310
The Contract does not contain a duty to act in good faith.

Ariel is dealing with a renown sea-witch. She cannot expect a sea-witch to act in good faith. Ursula, in her wiliness, might have said “Oh, of course!” when asked whether she would act in good faith, but Ariel certainly would not have said so.
You can sue someone for tortious interference with a contract
 

MrHedin

Member
Dec 7, 2018
519
User warned: derogatory language
Ursula prizes Ariel’s voice. Ursula knows that the freedom of expression, the right to have one’s opinion heard, and the power of communication are valuable things. On the other hand, Ariel is willing to be silenced in exchange for physical alteration,.

Ursula obtains her power legally. Unlike Disney’s other villains whose plans involved illegitimate means, Ursula received the Trident as consideration pursuant to a contract. She had played by the rules, and in return, she was impaled in her Cecaelian gut by an emasculated and character-less prince!
Ursula didn't prize Ariel's voice, it was just a handicap to make things much harder for Ariel. I would say Ursula didn't even care about Ariel, she was just a tool to get to Triton who was her real goal.

I also contend that Ariel got gypped by the timeline, she really only got two days instead of three.
 

Kuma Bear

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,052
Japan
I disagree, if I made a contract with someone that I can commit a crime against them I doubt it will be valid in court and it won't hold up.
 

TheBryanJZX90

Member
Nov 29, 2017
1,310
I’m not sure you can tortiously interfere with your own contract, but there’s probably an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing she breached.
Yeah I was trying to see if that was actually possible or not and couldn't tell in the first minute or so so I gave up. On the other hand, I'm also not really seeing a justification for no cause of action existing against a party to a contract when a cause of action would lie against a third party doing the exact same actions.
 

HotHamBoy

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,910
Ursula WAS evil irrespective of the contract, assuming you consider "evil" objectively definable.

She knowingly manipulated desperate merefolk into deals she knew she would game against them so that she could own their souls and keep them as slug people.

Besides, you know she's evil because Disney coded her as queer. (That's not really a joke tbh)
 

Brakke

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,394
I like this sort of thread because it’s very clear who is lawyers, who is goofs, and who is pretending to be lawyers.
 

morningbus

Member
Oct 31, 2017
302
This Disney thread devolved into a discussion about how Libertarians believe you should be able to sell yourself into slavery much faster than usual.