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 24.4%
  • Ursula is pure evil, but the contract is legal.

    Votes: 426 56.3%

  • Total voters
    757

Squishy3

Member
Oct 27, 2017
711
King Triton's in the wrong for not treating Ariel like an equal and rationally explaining his viewpoint, leading to Ursula taking advantage of Ariel. (Also you'd think your dad would've told you about the evil sea witch living around the corner that's not to be trusted. Even Simba was told by Mufasa not to go to the elephant graveyard.)
 

Eumi

Member
Nov 3, 2017
3,434
Legality equalling morality is a lie perpetuated by capitalism.

Wake up sheeple. Err, sheep-ish? Feeple? Whatever.
 

pigeon

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,581
Yes they can, though if it’s not for a necessity then they can repudiate them pretty easily. Try not to spread misinformation.




That’s not how this works. What you’ve shown above is evidence that the contract CAN be enforced. Submission 1 of that post means Ariel could repudiate at any time, so she’d probably be fine, but the rest are mere arguments, not established law.
It seems pretty explicitly established that Triton is the monarch and it’s very well established that sovereigns cannot be bound by contracts since no court with jurisdiction can be found. Ursula would simply have to wait for Triton to become signatory to the Trans-Pacific Partnership and then utilize investor-state dispute settlement to be made whole after the dispossession.
 

DrSlek

Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,491
This seems like a thread an Ancap or US libertarian would create.

Are you an Ancap or US libertarian, OP?
 

Subpar Scrub

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,237
It seems pretty explicitly established that Triton is the monarch and it’s very well established that sovereigns cannot be bound by contracts since no court with jurisdiction can be found. Ursula would simply have to wait for Triton to become signatory to the Trans-Pacific Partnership and then utilize investor-state dispute settlement to be made whole after the dispossession.
I can’t remember the whole movie but I thought Ursula’s home was still in Atlantica. So wouldn’t international arbitration and other dispute resolution methods regarding investor-states not be applicable? I have only done a very broad and rough course on globalised law on account of still being partially through my first year, so I legit don’t know if there’s something you could do through investor state dispute resolution.
 

skeezx

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,306
ariel was a hoarder who hung out with a crab and prince eric was probably coked out half the time. i don't understand how Ursula was in the wrong
 

Schreckstoff

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,119
you can't put illegal things into a contract and say that they are legal as a result, Ursula making physical alterations to Ariel w/o Triton's consent is illegal in and of itself.
Also even "legal" contracts can be voided for various reasons, i.e. a signee wasn't in a right state of mind as is clearly the case with Ariel.
 
Last edited:

Frodo

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
974
She was a little bit evil, despite being completely honest about everything. Ariel is just plain dumb though.

With that being said, if Ursula was a man we would just see her as the average ambitious business man.
 

Jimnymebob

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,425
I mean, the contract was legal on account of it being a contract, but Ursula broke the terms like 4 times before moving onto attempted murder lol.

She actively stopped Ariel from kissing Eric, then she turned to a human to try and seduce Eric to stop him from kissing Ariel, then she kidnaps Ariel and blackmails Triton into giving up the trident, then she tries to kill Eric, and finally she turns into a big monster and tries to just rampage through the sea before being killed.
 

Ichthyosaurus

Banned
Dec 26, 2018
8,737
Legality equalling morality is a lie perpetuated by capitalism.

Wake up sheeple. Err, sheep-ish? Feeple? Whatever.
Pretty sure that sort of thinking predates capitalism since humanity started drafting up laws for itself, and it likely crosses over into religion, as well. You need to stop thinking every stupid thing humanity has done started and ends with capitalism.
 

Rhaya

Member
Oct 25, 2017
762
Ariel made a deal with the devil willingly.
It was a fair deal in all the right ways.
But it was still a deal with the devil and shefoolishly believed the devil not to attempt to backstab her.
 

Jindrax

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,039
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.
Depends under which law the contract was concluded. Most legal systems force good faith on all contracts.
 

Eumi

Member
Nov 3, 2017
3,434
Pretty sure that sort of thinking predates capitalism since humanity started drafting up laws for itself, and it likely crosses over into religion, as well. You need to stop thinking every stupid thing humanity has done started and ends with capitalism.
I’m sorry my joke about Disney’s The Little Mermaid bothered you. I’ll make sure that in the future, all jokes about the ignorance of Flounder and his ilk drilled in to them from birth by a system designed to exploit them meet a higher standard of factual quality.
 

weekev

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,040
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.
this contradicts the title of your OT which says Ursula isnt evil at all. Not acting in good faith is the evil part. This is a weird OP and seems to be reaching quite massively. Ursula is evil, Ariel is naive.
 

Lobster Roll

Banned
Sep 24, 2019
1,099
Chicago, IL
Is this just a meme that I missed out on? Some folks at a party were loudly discussing this exact topic over the weekend and were trying to drag everybody else there into the debate and we didn’t get it.
 
OP
OP
FernandoRocker

FernandoRocker

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
4,545
México
Is this just a meme that I missed out on? Some folks at a party were loudly discussing this exact topic over the weekend and were trying to drag everybody else there into the debate and we didn’t get it.
Not really, no. But my little daughter has been watching The Little Mermaid repeatedly for the last couple of weeks, and I have quite memorised the film now.

Lately, I have been thinking that the witch wasn't that bad.
 
Last edited:

Dishwalla

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
10,193
Boise, Idaho
The whole “minors can’t sign contracts” attitude in this thread is sure a lot different than that Taylor Swift thread a couple weeks ago.

omg poster above me was on the same track, spooky
 

ZealousD

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,172
Not really, no. But my little daughter has been watching The Little Mermaid repeatedly for the last couple of weeks, and I have quite memorised the film now.

Lately, I have been thinking that the witch wasn't that bad.
So you know that she manipulated a naive young girl into signing a contract with awful terms for the express purpose of taking over the world sea. You know she acted in bad faith by interfering with that girl's ability to get the thing she wanted from the contract. You know she had a whole collection of merpeople that she had turned into polyps because they couldn't "pay" for her services, a kind of extrajudicial punishment or even slavery.

And your takeaway is that she "wasn't that bad".
 

bionic77

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,129
Can't believe there is a team Ursala.

Ursala was taking advantage of a stupid horny teenager to subjugate and murder the king of the ocean (who was an ass, but still the rightful king).

OP is either a distant relative to Ursala with some sea monster in him or is a pimp.
 

weemadarthur

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,261
At the time the story was written/set, 16 wasn’t a minor.

But since Ariel is literate enough to write her own name, but doesn’t do that using sea water on a rowboat oar when Eric asks her what her name is, she is too stupid to run her own life. Like most people.

Also the story is irrelevant, only the music matters. Mmmm.
 

thefro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,222
Disney clearly changed the character to be explicitly evil as compared to the original story.
 
Oct 27, 2017
7,026
I think the contract was fair, except when she bewitched the dude to get him to marry her instead of Ariel. That was fucken cheatin'!
 
Oct 26, 2017
842
I can’t remember the whole movie but I thought Ursula’s home was still in Atlantica. So wouldn’t international arbitration and other dispute resolution methods regarding investor-states not be applicable? I have only done a very broad and rough course on globalised law on account of still being partially through my first year, so I legit don’t know if there’s something you could do through investor state dispute resolution.
Want she banished? That makes it seem she didn't live in the same country.
 

thepotatoman

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,452
Denver
Can't believe there is a team Ursala.

Ursala was taking advantage of a stupid horny teenager to subjugate and murder the king of the ocean (who was an ass, but still the rightful king).

OP is either a distant relative to Ursala with some sea monster in him or is a pimp.
They're just anarcho-capitalists who think the minimum wage is the biggest sin of society because it outlaws the signing of contracts between two "willing" participants. They don't have the heart or brain to see cruel one sided contracts signed out of pressure and manipulation as bad.
 

Dr. Mario

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,785
Netherlands
I think the movie made clear that the contract was legally binding to the point even King Triton felt that he had to obey the legality of the clearly evil contract. So I think age and bad faith considerations don't come in play when it comes to the Under the Sea kingdom laws.

What remains up for debate though is whether the contract allowed for Ursula to actually use Ariels voice as she was trying to win over Erik's heart. Usually when you pawn off your jewelry for money, the pawn shop owner doesn't get to wear the jewelry to cocktail parties before the repayment contract ends. This may have constituted an unlawful breach of contract. But we wouldn't be able to tell without reading the Cthulu language
 

Aaron

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
12,549
Nah Ursula was in the wrong.

Ariel was a minor, the "do it in three days or I get your soul" stipulation was too punitive, and Ursula meddled with Ariel and Eric's romance on multiple occasions.

She doesn't have a fin to stand on.