Maybe I worded the title incorrectly. I should have said: "Ursula wasn't in the wrong".
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.
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.
Also the contract itself has been analyzed by a commercial lawyer to show that it wasn't a legit contract that could be enforced
I like this sort of thread because it's very clear who is lawyers, who is goofs, and who is pretending to be lawyers.
I'm definitely not a lawyer, but over that last year I've been exposed to a lot of real case law through a few different events.
Don't claim to be right, but I know some questions that should be asked.
This Disney thread devolved into a discussion about how Libertarians believe you should be able to sell yourself into slavery much faster than usual.
...
hahahahahahahahahahaha
Also the contract itself has been analyzed by a commercial lawyer to show that it wasn't a legit contract that could be enforced
Sounds like an argument made by a porn producer. She's a kid who got manipulated.
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.
👆 It isn't exactly subtle that Ursula's contract is exploitive.Sounds like an argument made by a porn producer. She's a kid who got manipulated.
Lol now that I think about it... didn't Triton try to destroy the contract but it was invincible because it was a legal magical contract? Ursula was all smug and hiding behind it. I remember! So much for the absolute monarch angle, it was already shown in the movie that Triton could not void it.
Edit: based on this new memory, I'm changing my vote to evil but lawful contract. Sure that bs contract would never fly in our world, but in merworld apparently it's perfectly legal!
In my mind, this is how trade lawyers fuck around when the boss is out of the office.
Lol now that I think about it... didn't Triton try to destroy the contract but it was invincible because it was a legal magical contract? Ursula was all smug and hiding behind it. I remember! So much for the absolute monarch angle, it was already shown in the movie that Triton could not void it.
Edit: based on this new memory, I'm changing my vote to evil but lawful contract. Sure that bs contract would never fly in our world, but in merworld apparently it's perfectly legal!
Also the contract itself has been analyzed by a commercial lawyer to show that it wasn't a legit contract that could be enforced
I mean, marrying off at age 16 after having only known a guy for a few days wasn't exactly standard practice in 1989 either.
Legality and morality have nothing to do with eachother. Send Ursula to the guillotine.