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

[FernandoRocker]

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!

 

[PickledCucumber]

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!

Click to shrink...

Didn't she actively try to stop Ariel from marrying Eric?

 

[WolverinesFather]

16 year olds can't sign contracts.

 

[Ryan.]

A lot of contracts are legal and fair. Doesn't make the person who made it not evil.

 

[Dio]

Didn't she actively try to stop Ariel from marrying Eric?

Click to shrink...

she did.

 

[Slappy White]

Well god damn. Now I have to rewatch The Little Mermaid.

 

[Deleted member 43084]

16 year olds can't sign contracts.

Click to shrink...

But it's maritime law!

 

[Jesse_and_the_rippers]

Didn't she actively try to stop Ariel from marrying Eric?

Click to shrink...

yep, they were about to smooch until her eels intervened, then put Eric under a spell and tried to marry him herself.

She had no intent of letting things unfold naturally.

Also the trident part was exchanged at the end.

 

[FernandoRocker]

Didn't she actively try to stop Ariel from marrying Eric?

Click to shrink...

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]

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.

Click to shrink...

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.

 

[TwoDelay]

That poll is loaded, something can be 100% legal and still evil.

 

[Sandfox]

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.

Click to shrink...

You're claiming that Ursula wasn't evil and now your saying Ariel shouldn't have expected her to not be evil?

 

[Failburger]

The Little Mermaid was a story how a girl was trying to get a dick in her. Ursula did no wrong

 

[Deleted member 1086]

I mean she was also manipulated in a time of vulnerability to sign the contract in the first place

 

[FernandoRocker]

That poll is loaded, something can be 100% legal and still evil.

Click to shrink...

Added a new poll option.

 

[Deleted member 4372]

16 year olds can't sign contracts.

Click to shrink...

Boom exactly

 

[Ryan.]

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.

Click to shrink...

So she's evil

 

[deimosmasque]

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.

Click to shrink...

Okay then Ursala is evil. She had a legal contract but acted in bad faith.

 

[FernandoRocker]

Maybe I worded the title incorrectly. I should have said: "Ursula wasn't in the wrong".

 

[kurahador]

Sounds like an argument made by a porn producer. She's a kid who got manipulated.

 

[Deleted member 1086]

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]

The contract was technically legal, but I think any self-respecting judge would throw it out based on predatory business.

 

[Kino]

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.

Click to shrink...

Victim blaming much? Do you think drug dealers who sell to kids are also doing nothing wrong?

 

[ThereAreFourNaan]

Totally clears the sea-witch. Thank you!

 

[CenturionNami]

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]

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!

Click to shrink...

Perfect.

 

[Nairume]

Also the contract itself has been analyzed by a commercial lawyer to show that it wasn't a legit contract that could be enforced

 

[Megadragon15]

The little mermaid should have turned to foam, like Hans Christian Anderson wanted her to.

 

[Deleted member 1086]

Ursula's death is one of the more boss Disney deaths though

 

[CursedOctopus]

Seems like a clear case of squid pro quo.

 

[Rad Bandolar]

But it's maritime law!

Click to shrink...

Even better, it's Under the Sea Law.

 

[Fat4all]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nH6ya5g2-s

 

[Aexact]

Also the contract itself has been analyzed by a commercial lawyer to show that it wasn't a legit contract that could be enforced

Click to shrink...

Oh my god.
That's delightful. I often wondered if I was really an adult but reading hypothetical legalese on evil sea witch contracts must be an indicator.

 

[Deleted member 1086]

 

[Loki_the_Chocobo]

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]

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.

Click to shrink...

You can sue someone for tortious interference with a contract

 

[Nairume]

You can sue someone for tortious interference with a contract

Click to shrink...

And with King Triton being an absolute monarch who would clearly be in charge of determining the judicial appointments to the supreme court of the seven seas, there's little chance Ursula would be able to win a legal battle in the end.

 

[MrHedin]

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!

Click to shrink...

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.

 

[Posty McPostface]

You can sue someone for tortious interference with a contract

Click to shrink...

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.

 

[iWannaHat]

But it's maritime law!

Click to shrink...

I mean if you are out in the water... What is she going to do? Say no? She won't. Because of the implication

 

[Deleted member 19218]

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.

 

[Khanimus]

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.

Click to shrink...

So she was evil?

 

[jerf]

I mean if you are out in the water... What is she going to do? Say no? She won't. Because of the implication

Click to shrink...

beat me to it

Which raises the question, why did Eric take her out on that boat?

 

[Doc Laserstein]

D) Ariel was dumb, Ursula was evil, and the contract wasn't legal

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

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.

Click to shrink...

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]

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]

I like this sort of thread because it's very clear who is lawyers, who is goofs, and who is pretending to be lawyers.

 

[Fat4all]

I like this sort of thread because it's very clear who is lawyers, who is goofs, and who is pretending to be lawyers.

Click to shrink...

 

[Foffy]

Ursula is a pure capitalist.

Evil.

 

[morningbus]

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