DumpingSh1tandBeingKind2
1227586
2558
33
May 26, 2024 3:11 PM
DumpingSh1tandBeingKind2
1227586
2558
33
transientmind
Predatory contracts under ‘unwinnable’ conditions for consumers are unethical and should be illegal. If a business woman can’t survive without dodgy contracts, she shouldn’t be in business. She also wilfully ignores the fact that the 16yr old’s marriage had parental consent, the 16yr old’s contract did not. If she’d taken it to the King for approval, he’d have either voided it or taken appropriate precautions. Fuck anyone who sides with manipulative contracts over fairness.
chrisat928
Yeah, we know. But have you ever tried to talk to an emotional teenage girl? They're not prone to rational decisions.
Saxytimes
First of all I want to hear this woman's take on every movie ever. Second of all I thought part of the law is that a contract has to be reasonable. Stealing a voice doesn't seem reasonable. Third of all, ya the father is kind of sexy...
sciguygobyebye
Sounds like a loan for college. Everyone told you not to go for that dumb degree, but you fell in love with the campus and thought of being "independent". You signed the contract. Now you can only hope someone can bail you out of your own mess.
TheWombatStrikesAgain
Love? That wasn't love. Actual love needs a bit more than spending three days together while not having a single conversation. It was a crush, and a hefty dose of horniness. Not more love than in Romeo&Juliet.
TheUnnamedPoet
I almost choked laughing at this. I love this woman. She wins best mom/grandma for the rest of her life.
SociallyInept1
I love this lady! The other video when she finds her son's edible is funny
EllerySmellery
What?!?!
Where please
TheFifthTK
Capitalists justifying massive harm as a boon of contractual chicanery
friendsofsandwiches
she SOUNDS like Sebastian.
ruint
Someone needs to introduce that woman to the 'Brothers Grimm' version. Bet she'd love it.
MrStealYourGiF
NightOwlRally
I always thought the moral of the story was, don't give up being your authentic self for the sake of someone else.
jumpbus360
I'll point out that Ariel was way, way underage when she signed that contract. And her father, as king, could void said contract.
HalfATomato
He tried. I mean, he blasted at the contact with his trident. I'm assuming that's how legal contact voidance is processed in his kingdom. It didn't work.
Epsi22
Alt hot take: in Disney's movie Ariel's dad had the power to give her what she wanted the whole time, to let her be happy, but he withheld that and she went to someone else who also had that power, who trapped her in a contract and then screwed him over, too.
uden10
Yeah, the dad's journey was to accept Ariel's love for the surface world and Eric.
rbudrick
Ursula also broke contract when she made the eels do that shit, so Ariel was right to reneg.
brownribbon
Ariel is 16, and as a minor she can’t sign a contract. The contract is void.
Alsenoth
In fairness, too, Ariel is the WORST Disney Princess. By a landslide. When I worked for Disney it was an ongoing gag among cast members talking about Ariel being the worst Princess, and Cars 2 being the worst Pixar film (this was before the Good Dinosaur).
Rufferstuff
Sexy father you say?
chewmaca2
hotdoginathermos
ByThePowerOfSCIENCE
Well, Andersen describes her as white or pale several times, but the also dies in the end so the HMS StickToTheOriginal sailed and sank long ago
WilliamWeird
She was not old enough to sign a contract without a guardian, and that crab did not bother to co-sign
ByThePowerOfSCIENCE
what's the contract age in Triton law?
cryborg
IDK if you have ever tried to argue with a Filipina woman. They are tougher than they look.
whoatherebigfella
@Cryborg asking the real question! Few things are harder than winning an argument with a Filipina. It doesn’t even have to be an argument, even a view or idea that differs from theirs. Exhausting! Speaking from experience here.
nagesagi
I have and won. Usually a pyrrhic victory and very exhausting.
whoatherebigfella
Ahh she let you think you won. Nice.
Malloon
Can't say I agree. A contract is establishing consent, but a) Ariel was under emotional duress, b) she was not old enough to make the decision, c) she was not cognisant of the exact implicit terms the contract would be had under (sabotage) and d) all modern contract law specifies both parties need to get something out of it, for these exact circumstances. Ursula acted to make sure Ariel wouldn't, which would make it null and void. Just because someone agreed to something doesn't give you /1
Malloon
license to screw them over as long as you abide by the exact terms. But she shouldn't have gotten married then either, no. /2
Freak0zoid
Legal eagle did a video on this and these were his points if I remember correctly
Malloon
Sweet! I watch him, but never watched that one, I believe.
Afewflowers
The real hero is Sebastian, who repeatedly risked his life to keep the entire kingdom from being destroyed. It wasn't even supposed to be his job
4vie
To be fair he is the royal conductor. He's used to having to lead people.
TheLastGreatAudit
Never forget he showed us that Eric's internal monologue is in a Jamaican accent. Ol boy doesn't question it for a second.
Hotjoe1991
This kills the crab
WeAlreadyHadThisWar
echoawoo
Gives a whole new meaning to snowball.
ClownishAntics
https://imgur.com/QXjNFiU.gif
shitheadtookmyname
The orchestral conductor saving society is the wet dream of every music major
FrankRizzo55
I've done worse for feet
kobyashimaru
They made a malificent movie. They’ll eventually make an Ursula back-story movie making her look like a victim.
ruint
Too late, it's already a musical: https://unfortunatemusical.com/
Xanadulou
Aww, UK only
smothatehdecay
Not Ursula, but Twisted is hands down the best villain reversal there is. Treat yourself https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-77cUxba-aA
endyrr
"But she signed it!" is the same as saying, "I scammed an uneducated and inexperienced person for profit fair and square!" Yay capitalism!
HandsomePenguin
Also underaged.
TheWombatStrikesAgain
Though they scammed a gullible idiot who saw an ad and thought a new ferrari would make them a pussy magnet. And ignored everyone who told them to not get one.
Doesn't clear the dealer of wrongdoing, but the buyer is still a huge fucking moron.
AkailAzul
I was about to say, regardless of whether she did or did not read the contract, can she even read at all? We cannot assume she can just because she can write her name.
HardlineThatSauce
Would it then be Triton's responsibility as the monarch to implement more effective regulations to protect his subjects from predatory lending? This thought experiment is super fun 😆
CoreyI35
No. We should all share in the cost of her feet! Feet for everyone! Free feet!
LoitninStroik
* Quentin Tarantino enters the chat *
aPokal
He already banished her. Meaning the contract was done outside his jurisdiction. Also don't forget that it neither current day nor USA.
aPokal
"Also don't forget that it PLAYS IN neither current day nor USA." Also to the one DM. Yes, location of signage can matter and citizenship of partner does matter.
Colopty
Didn't the movie have a part where he tried to void it but the contract was shown to be completely legal and binding under his jurisdiction, thus why he couldn't do so?
aPokal
No. It was valid "under magic" and if anything does show that it was outside/above his rule. Sure, not every monarch is some restriction free god king, but annulling contracts between citizen is common.
meganical
I see it more like how banks or evil corporations convince youths to buy student loans to afford college. People under the age of 25 do not have fully developed brains or decent capability of planning for the future
Paireon
I like how the fact you said "evil corporations" but not "evil banks" implies by default that all banks are evil.
LoitninStroik
I mean............
Paireon
Oh I'm not disagreeing. At all.
beemarr
She's absolutely right. Plus, by Ariel's actions, she was directly responsible for the near destruction of the kingdom (empire?) and did absolutely nothing to help resolve the problems she created. And she still gets her happy ending for being an irresponsible brat? Yeesh, talk about terrible role models.
HandsomePenguin
And a literal child.
DumpingSh1tandBeingKind2
She's a role model for what not to do, but that's about it!
DeadeicPrints
Kids screw up, and it's a parents job to take responsibility for that. Triton could have just sacrificed his daughter to save all his kindoms lives, he chose one life over many. He was also the one who drove her to her decision by becoming violent and destroying her room, chasing her away. Business people who trick youngins with promises they plan on sabatoging aren't in the right just bc someone signed a contract. Ursula never intended to fulfill her end of the deal.
beemarr
True, but kids -also- face consequences as adults in special cases when the crime is egregious enough. And I'd say nearly dooming her entire people is egregious enough that it's frankly an injustice that she faced zero consequences.
demianstine
No she did not. Arial caused no damage. Brat that she was, she committed no crime.
DeadeicPrints
She didn't endanger her kingdom, her dad did. It's not illegal to get tricked into a cult and then held hostage and its not your fault when the police give the cult leader money in exchange for your life. Should you face consequences if your father shoots an innocent person bc a kidnapper has a gun to your head just bc you fell for a trick? Should you be fined or jailed for it?
demianstine
Woot! Woot!
djl74
Ariel was 16. The age of consent is 18 isn’t it? In that case, she’s not old enough to sign a contract for herself.
itsjustplaid
Nothing to indicate what the age of consent was in the oceans.
meganical
It depends on the state. Child marriage is still very legal in numerous US states
demianstine
That is a ridiculous argument. Are you saying child marriage is legit?!
omgzwtfs
Legitimate as in legal in some places, but morally questionable (at best) everywhere.
demianstine
OK, agreed!
AddictedtoSoup
demianstine
Less bait and more an outraged retort. But a little bit bait.
CheshireCad
Ursula voided the terms of the contract by deliberately sabotaging it, on multiple occasions.
Unless the contract specifically included terms allowing such conduct. In which case, Ariel made a mistake by not reading it fully, but Ursula is *still evil*.
Misteree8
Both. You got a dumb red head all about the human...feet, and a sea witch that is hell bent on the downfall of the sea kingdom. It looks like she picked the right idiot.
sadurdaynight
Yeah, Ursula was Lawful Evil. She used law and contract to bind someone in order to get away with evil. Evil people love holding someone over a legal barrel, b/c it makes them feel more helpless to fight back. Like they "deserve" to be in their situation, b/c it's legally allowed.
MerriMod
The contract is a red herring. Ursula created it entirely on her own and is the one who enforces it; there is no external third party to review its terms or raise grievances with. It's a classic Fae trap to trick the other party into thinking there are safety nets and restrictions, when there are none. The contract exists entirely for the sake of Ursula to hide behind a veil of legitimacy and trick others into submitting to her demands.
ArcaneConjecture
No -- that contract was self-enforcing. It withstood a blast of King Triton's trident. The act of making the contract generated power that Ursula didn't have.
nopo
I mean, the lady isnt saying she isnt. She says Usula is evil. She just thinks Ariel was an idiot who put herself in an untenable situation for "feet and eric, who looks like toothpaste".
Perkunas687
The contract would have to prevent the behavior. If it's not prohibited in the contract, you can assume it is allowed.
QuartzPoker
Kinda? Depends on the jurisdiction. Some places expect good faith behavior from both parties
hellodeliciousfriend
https://youtu.be/S5GE0IjJAns?si=GBpDlKBuEfhAoHUI
Yellowchopsticks
Magical contracts always allow "stuff not excluded" and never "only stuff that's included", just look at genie wishes, monkey paws, anything involving the fae. Ursula's actions were within magical contract expectations.
DanCodyComics
That's dumb. Why are they even contracts then? It has no dramatic weight of it's not a mistake, the point is that you were foolishly tempted. Making whatever bullshit makes the story go fair game flattens tension, reduces agency, and makes the magic people look like ninnies for losing. Why not just fucking kill them outright when it looks like they might win? Why not add a clause that says you gain the right to stop their heart remotely? Why have rules that aren't rules?
frigidmagi2
Fair but if that's the case Ariel stabbing her with a ship is also valid. Also I have to ask if Ariel is 16 can she even sign a contract without her father's permission?
IUsedToHaveUsernameOnce
This applies to real life, too. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is
CheshireCad
...But Ursula is *still evil.*
Morality and legality are two vastly different things.
copperdomebodhi
Those aren't contracts, they're wishes. Deals, at most. If someone wants the protection of the law, the other party has legal rights, too.
There's such a thing as an "unconscionable contract." Signing a deal with a minor without parental consent is a classic example.
Pseudosim
Ursula: "You didn't NOT ask for your feet to feel like you were walking on broken glass. Thats not my fault, you didnt include it in the contract."
TravisTee34
At least in the original story, she did actually tell the little mermaid about that. The Sea Witch in the original wasn't evil, but a neutral party. She was very open and clear on the terms and conditions. Ursula, meanwhile, gave the entire spiel about what the deal entailed, no voice, the three days, the penalties... and then decided to intervene to sabotage it. AND she did it to someone who, by all rights shouldn't even have been able to sign it, since she wasn't an adult yet.
FairyKingOberon
The only thing ill say about the age thing is what was the age of majority *at the time*? Most fairytales take place sometime in some fictional history, meaning that depending on where and when the story takes place she would legally be able to engage in a contract. By today's standards, no, but the story doesnt take place in 2024 Denmark
TinyBadger101
This. They don't have the appropriate clauses built in to say only conduct explicitly allowed is allowed, and somehow never include blanket bans on sabotage or other trickery. You'd think this would be the first thing anyone in a fantasy world would look for before signing a contract ... never sign with an Evil Witch or Wicket Faerie without a lawyer to review it first.
MisterFluffi
Maybe this is why you don't hear much about fae deals anymore, years of experience with movies and bad businesses have people wary of contracts. They probably took inspiration from them, fae deals are only in apple and video game t&c's now.
Yellowchopsticks
Even good fae will sabotage you if it's funny enough.
unsneakyLurker
If sabotage of this sort is permitted by the contract, so is killing to protect yourself from the sabotage. If Ursula did nothing wrong, neither had anyone else.
aPokal
Makes me wonder if the contract not so much broke as got annulled by Ursulas death. Because now one party wasn't there and if only rules written in the contract ably, but it doesn't have rules for the case of death of a party it just "no result returned".
TinyBadger101
Wicked Faerie. Sigh.
TinyVanLife
Eremotherium
I like the idea of “within magical contract expectations” being the legal standard in the Magical Beings Court, like some sort of “reasonable person” standard. It makes me think that the world needs a legal drama show centered around Magical Being court. How’s this: The protagonist is a law school graduate drowning in debt working a dead end document processing job who unwittingly makes a deal with a mercurial Fae Prince. Now she must serve as his legal counsel - in the Seelie Court.
shitheadtookmyname
Screen shooting this entire exchange for future fanfiction purposes
DW05
That sound like a job for a Shrek movie.
AlexSomething
Is Ariel even old enough to sign contracts? If you're 16 here, you need a parent/guardian to sign stuff for you most of the time.
nopo
Magical fae contracts dont care about your contract laws. They are enforced by magic, not by the state.
ConveyEmotionsViaGifs
we can't apply this to fish people, and even then it's probably a time we're ages for many things we're vastly different
CheshireCad
That depends on the age of maturity in the time period and location. Which is never clearly defined, plus the fact that it actually happened in Atlantis, with a race of mer-people that may have completely different laws and life expectancies.
But if it was several hundred years ago, it's reasonable that the age of maturity would be 16, or even younger, given the lower life expectancy.
SnowpersonHitInTheFaceWithALackOfCreativity
Given the Jamaican crab, surely it's set somewhere in the Caribbean, no?
astrangehop
I always assumed with the prince named Erik, & the Irish setter ut wad somewhere in Northern Europe.
SnowpersonHitInTheFaceWithALackOfCreativity
Yeah but the Prince was on a ship tho
nopo
I usually see Erics kingdom placed somewhere Denmark.
PirateRubberDuck
If she is old enough to get married then she is old enough to sign a contract, because marriage is a contract.
AkailAzul
In those times, that marital contract might still be with the groom and bride's father, not involving the bride signing anything herself, sadly.
Jagr3135
In the end she got married with parental consent, so at that point her legal ability to sign a contract is moot.
nopo
Sure, but the marriage contract would be signed by her dad, not her.
Tumescentpie
Well the contract might be with her father. Women were property for a very long time.
LeninTheWalrus
I feel like marriage is one of the few legal carve outs where minors can enter into binding contracts (in the US at least).
keillrandor
Which should tell you a lot about the US :P