-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
In The Little Mermaid, Ursula wasn't evil at all. The contract was legal and fair...
- Thread starter FernandoRocker
- Start date
Legally no (assuming that the Merpeople laws do allow this sort of contract.)
But if you want to debate the validity of a contract signed under duress, by a minor who is a public figure, which is also just a scheme to take over a Kingdom from an estranged sibling... We need a lot more information that isn't in the movie or supplemental source material.
I think it's an element of tortious interference that the contract be between the plaintiff and a third party or parties. If it's a party to the contract who is interfering, then the cause of action would likely require a contractual theory instead of a tort. Breach of an implied covenant, for example.
So you're saying she's not evil because Ariel should know she is evil?
I'm not sure I follow.
The witch knew it was a bad deal, the contract was predatory and in bad faith! Would never hold up in mercourt, nope.
OP, read this awesome shit posted below, the contract had unreasonable clauses, Ursula wasn't acting in good faith and Triton, being the absolute uni... monarch, can use his judicial powers to void it.
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'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 is the healthiest non-lawyer attitude.
Don't let yourself get fucked, but also don't fuck yourself.
holy ship
sea monkey paw
Do we know if Triton has laws against slavery? I'd GUESS so given he takes issues with humans eating fish. As such, uh, no, the contract isn't legal.
Even if it was, Ursula's still evil. Legal or lawful =/= inherently good or pure.
OH I AM A FOOL--
Even if it was, Ursula's still evil. Legal or lawful =/= inherently good or pure.
...
OH I AM A FOOL--
i just like the fact that apparently because a contract is legal it means it can't be evil?
like what is the thought process there
like what is the thought process there
hahahahahahahahahahaha
OMG HAHAHAHAHAAHHA Never seen that amazing :D
Also the contract itself has been analyzed by a commercial lawyer to show that it wasn't a legit contract that could be enforced
Some people have way too much time on their hands lol
I'm pretty sure the underlying principle is that the trade is not equitable, QED Ursula is evil for offering a naive girl a shit deal.
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.
Right! In what world does this justify that Ursula isn't evil & in which she can do whatever she wants?
Option 2 for me in the poll.
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!
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!
Last edited:
At most you can say Ursula is lawful evil but she is evil nonetheless.
Also King Triton is an abusive asshole and should have died alongside Ursula.
👆 It isn't exactly subtle that Ursula's contract is exploitive.
Also King Triton is an abusive asshole and should have died alongside Ursula.
His trident couldn't break it, but that doesn't mean it was legal. It just means that Ursula's magic made it an unbreakable contract. Once she was killed, the effects of the magical contract wore off.
Ursula cheated. She was about to lose and then she had to cast a spell on the prince who had already fallen for Ariel. The prince didn't even have to fall in love with Ursula in disguise the dude couldn't even speak on his own at their wedding.
She's the textbook definition of villain in 80s movies, using some faux legal method to run some kind of fraud and then interfere every step of the way to make sure the hero get's trapped.
Plus she roofied a guy to make him walk the altar.
She's the textbook definition of villain in 80s movies, using some faux legal method to run some kind of fraud and then interfere every step of the way to make sure the hero get's trapped.
Plus she roofied a guy to make him walk the altar.
Last edited:
In my mind, this is how trade lawyers fuck around when the boss is out of the office.
The undersea is explicitly a monarchy. Ursula's seizure of the trident and her being deposed by Eric are just normal civil wars of the type common to feudal monarchies. No law can bind sovereign powers or their conflicts. The entire concept of a contract being "legal and fair" represents a form of Lockean liberalism totally alien to the pre-Enlightenment understanding of sovereign rule.
By the same token, killing Ursula undid the effects of the contract, so clearly that was also perfectly legal.
Counter-point:
Ariel was under the age of consent so she's unable to consent to such a contract. Holding her to it unethical.
Even under spurious jurisdiction like maritime law, Ursula is an ages old sea-witch while Ariel is an impressionable teenager. Even if Ursula is following the letter of the law, she's breaking the spirit of the law.
Ariel was under the age of consent so she's unable to consent to such a contract. Holding her to it unethical.
Even under spurious jurisdiction like maritime law, Ursula is an ages old sea-witch while Ariel is an impressionable teenager. Even if Ursula is following the letter of the law, she's breaking the spirit of the law.
Yes they can, though if it's not for a necessity then they can repudiate them pretty easily. Try not to spread misinformation.
Also the contract itself has been analyzed by a commercial lawyer to show that it wasn't a legit contract that could be enforced
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.
Last edited:
Ursula was totally evil, but that contract was totally legal (especially the parts you can't read) and binding and she was mad up front about it being that way. Ocean sorcery and whatnot. She was great.
Last edited:
Yeah I saw it for the first time a few months ago, and it wasn't at all what I expected lol