Do you have the post-summer blues? The sun is setting earlier, your Facebook feed is full of school woes, and your white shoes have been put in the back of the closet. Perhaps you need a little bit of a pick-me-up before the cold weather ennui sets in? Well, then have I got the internet rabbit hole for you!
Both engrossing and amusing, a recent thread on Reddit asks the question: Defense lawyers of Reddit, what would your defense be for various Disney villains?
We are used to thinking of Disney villains as in the wrong, but what if they aren’t? Or more accurately, what if you were their lawyer anyway?
Free Attorney Time Tracking Template For Smarter Billing
Tired of messy time logs? This free attorney time tracking template helps you bill with confidence and accuracy. Learn more in the full article.
The most interesting defense belongs to the villain from The Little Mermaid, Ursula — or at least there are the most issues to “spot” in that case. Don’t forget Ursula had Ariel sign a contract to get the main plot started, a fact ripe for analysis. From Reddit user jacdeswilliams:
Ursula made a contract with Ariel that had no clause saying that Ursula was not allowed to interfere. The contract stated that she had to get Eric to fall in love with her without her voice, she failed, and she has to pay the price for her failure. It’s not Ursula’s fault Ariel doesn’t put things by a lawyer before she signs them.
Suuuuuure, Ariel was 16 when she signed on the dotted line, but it is unclear what the age of majority is for merpeople, and she did get married at 16.
And like any good, time wasting thread on the internet, there are quality responses too. From user BolshevikMuppet:
Skills That Set Firms Apart
Legal expertise alone isn’t enough. Today’s most successful firms invest in developing the skills that drive collaboration, leadership, and business growth. Our on-demand, customizable training modules deliver practical, high-impact learning for attorneys and staff—when and where they need it.
I have three contract law arguments, then one more interesting argument.
(1). Implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Ursula knew her plan was to interfere with Ariel’s ability to use her legs the way she’s anticipating based on the contract.
Let’s go by the elements:
- Definitely a contract
- Substantial performance on Ariel’s part (she gave up her voice right then).
- That Ursula unfairly interfered with Ariel’s right to receive the benefits of the contract.
- Ariel was damaged by this.
(2). Contract of adhesion, contrary to public policy. Notice that Ursula (yes, I had my fiancee look up the video and tell me about the agreement) proffered the contract completely written, and offered it only to Ariel on a “take it or leave it” basis. Allowing crazy squid-women to create contracts which allow them to transform people into weird slime things is definitely against public policy.
(3). Lack of a meeting of the minds. Ariel was not aware of (and had no reason to be aware of) Ursula’s plan to interfere with her attempts to woo Eric. This means that even while signing she was neither aware of the terms (including a lack of prohibition on Ursula’s interference) and could not become aware of the terms because the contract is itself gibberish.
Seriously, beyond the first part it’s not actual words.
But, on to the more interesting one.
I’m pretty sure this wouldn’t be treated under normal contract law, because it’s a contract which creates a bet, and betting is treated differently under a number of regulatory schemes. In this case, Ursula is attempting to fix the event being bet on so that she wins. So even if we accept the contract forming the bet is legal, Ursula illegally interfered with the event.
Well played, counselor. You have my vote.
There are tons of defenses on the thread. Another favorite is a clutch opening statement in defense of Captain Hook, from user cloudmerchant: