She was nothing but bad.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.
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.
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!
Why did I think Ursula turned people into dish rags? google tells me this isn't the case, so what am I thinking of?
I mean, we are basically where we are here in America because of a legal and evil system.That poll is loaded, something can be 100% legal and still evil.
Ursula's the Boomer trying to sell younger gen Ariel that she can do ANYTHING if she puts her mind to it, just sign on the dotted line. Ursula is the rich and powerful person selling the American Dream to the hopefully naive Ariel, just sign on the dotted line.
Disney clearly changed the character to be explicitly evil as compared to the original story.
Ursula breached Good faith and fair dealing?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.
Why did I think Ursula turned people into dish rags? google tells me this isn't the case, so what am I thinking of?
Would estoppel not be available under this contract as a defense for bad faith breaches? I mean, Ursula was a known double crosser, and Ariel had ignored that, even at the formation of the contract. Ursula relied on ariels knowledge of this fact, thereby waiving Ariels right to bring forth any cause of action based on a breach of implied covenant of good faith. The court should consider that Ariel is estopped from pursuing litigation over this contract and dismiss the case.I believe the evidence will show that she did. My client was ready, willing, and able to perform all obligations required of her under the agreement, and was in fact in the process of doing so, when deliberate actions taken by Ursula, and creatures acting on her behalf, prevented my client from completing her side of the bargain. Nothing can constitute a clearer breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, implied in every contract, than intentionally frustrating the performance by a party thereto. Therefore, Ursula must be held to be in breach of the contract, and my client must be made whole.
Thank you.
Title said:
Ariel is dealing with a renown sea-witch. She cannot expect a sea-witch to act in good faith.
Would estoppel not be available under this contract as a defense for bad faith breaches? I mean, Ursula was a known double crosser, and Ariel had ignored that, even at the formation of the contract. Ursula relied on ariels knowledge of this fact, thereby waiving Ariels right to bring forth any cause of action based on a breach of implied covenant of good faith. The court should consider that Ariel is estopped from pursuing litigation over this contract and dismiss the case.
you're right, its an illusory promise argument thus voiding the entire contract specifically because of Ursula lack of good faith, and the policy is clear not to allow contracts like that. It's not even a lack of good faith, it's literally an exercise of bad faith as she's actively trying not to let Ariel perform the contract. I mean look what I have go work with here, even the language of the contract is trollsy:That would be a bold argument. You're basically saying Ursula can never be trusted to actually carry out a contract in good faith, so she shouldn't be bound to do so. I'd argue you have created an issue where Ursula has a permanent illusory promise (or something similar) status. Basically, how could there ever be valid consideration if Ursula could escape liability on the contract by saying no one should take her promises seriously. I think your argument might prevent any kind of fraudulent misrepresentation claim against her in general, since it's clear Ariel has no right to rely on Ursula, but I think it would be really bad policy to apply that to contract.
Excuse me?All of the main characters in Little Mermaid are problematic and kind of suck.
Ariel is a rebellious hoarder who willingly throws her life away for the first attractive man she meets.
King Triton is a hover parent who seems to be emotionally abusive.
Ursula manipulates minors.
King Triton is a hover parent who seems to be emotionally abusive.
Going into her room and making her watch him destroy all of her possessions just to prove a point seems like a pretty big red flagWe enter the movie at a stage where King Triton has already (quite reasonably) repeatedly said to Ariel that she shouldn't interact with humans. We haven't seen what other steps he might have already taken that could have been softer. While he obviously goes too far with her by wrecking all the human stuff she found and gets a little too "my house my rules" with her, he recognizes he screwed up almost immediately.
I would say that King Triton made some mistakes but I don't know if I would call him abusive.
We've not even established under what laws we are assessing the terms of this agreement I take it?
People acting like this contract was agreed in US waters or some shit.
Until we sort that out we don't know what the legislation or the courts might imply into a primarily verbal contract that is extremely scant on detail.
The animation is absolutely gorgeous in a way that doesn't get made anymore, and the songs are absolutely peak-Disney. And some people might say that the story is more relevant now than it ever was.
That guy's a narc. The entire conflict of the movie could've been avoided if he hadn't outed Ariel to her father, in an attempt to suck up to said father.
Ya'll remember that priest with the raging erection?
Did they ever take that out?
.
I got a good laugh out of this. Thank you!
That poll is loaded, something can be 100% legal and still evil.