- Disney's original "Little Mermaid" came out in 1989.
And even though I was five at the time,
something really bothered me about this movie.
Yes, it was the legal contract.
I was an extremely litigious five-year-old.
So today we're gonna make that little boy very happy.
And we're gonna talk about whether Ariel's contract
with Ursula, the sea witch,
where Ariel trades her voice for legs
in an effort to win the kiss of true love
from a human that you just met earlier that day,
and who doesn't know that she exists
because, you know, Disney,
is a legally enforceable contract?
And the answer may surprise you.
And for those of you who didn't jump onto Wikipedia
before clicking on this video, here's a quick refresher
of what happened in the "Little Mermaid" cartoon.
Now, what's about a time there was Ariel,
a 16 year old mermaid princess
of the underwater kingdom of Atlantica
who had grown tired of her life under the sea.
♪ Under the sea, ♪
♪ Under the sea ♪
Now we're going to ignore the fact that she is a 16 year old
through most of this tale.
But Ariel's father and a ruler of Atlantica,
King Triton, has forbidden contact
between Mer people and humans
and orders Ariel to stay away from the surface world.
- They're dangerous.
Do you think I want to see my youngest daughter
snared by some fish eater's hook?
And I am never, never to hear of you
going to the surface again.
Is that clear?
- But since daughters who listen to their fathers
don't exactly make for good movies,
Ariel disobeys her father and swims to the surface.
She sees Prince Eric celebrating his birthday.
And by the laws of Disney,
she falls instantaneously in love.
And I know I said we were going to ignore the fact
that Ariel is 16, but Eric looks conservatively
to be celebrating his 35th birthday here.
Now, that's when a terrible storm hits.
Prince Eric is thrown overboard
and is then rescued by Ariel.
(dramatic music) (fireworks exploding)
When her father finds out Ariel
not only rescued a human from drowning
but is in love with him,
in outrage, King Triton destroys
Ariel's grotto of human artifacts, devastating her.
This in retrospect,
seems way more abusive than it did 25 years ago.
And just a small bit of unsolicited advice,
do not take parenting tips from Disney movies.
I don't care if you're upset.
You do not destroy your teenager's entire grotto
of misunderstood human artifacts.
Now theoretically, someone might need to call
Mer Child Protective Services on King Triton,
but that's a topic for a different video.
And it's with Triton's opening
that Ursula seizes the opportunity
to begin contract negotiations with Ariel.
Now, immediately after Triton's destruction of the grotto,
Ursula's, two moray eels, Flotsam and Jetsam,
pounce on a crying Ariel
like a credit card company on a college freshman.
- Don't be scared.
We represent someone who can help you,
someone who can make all your dreams come true.
- And the eels are acting
as agents of their principal, Ursula.
This all checks out.
In a principal-agent relationship,
the agent has legal authority
to speak and act on behalf of another,
which can include the power to negotiate contracts.
Here Flotsam and Jetsam
have declared that they represent Ursula, the sea witch,
and have the authority to communicate on her behalf.
So far so good.
Now, pursuant to that authority,
they have invited Ariel to meet with Ursula
to negotiate an agreement,
though for some reason the screenwriters
did not decide to phrase it in that way.
Now Ariel then follows the eels back to Ursula's lair
where the sea witch details
the terms of their proposed agreement in song.
♪ Come on, you poor unfortunate soul ♪
♪ Go ahead ♪
♪ Make your choice ♪
♪ I'm a very busy woman and I haven't got all day ♪
♪ It won't cost much, just your voice ♪
- Ursula is expressing her intention
to make a deal with Ariel and communicates
the specific terms and consideration
of the proposed agreement.
Ursula offers to make Ariel a human for three days
in exchange for Ariel giving Ursula her voice.
And if Ariel does not receive the kiss of true love
from Prince Eric within three days,
then she reverts back to a mermaid
and shall belong to Ursula.
Inciting past historical precedent
of previous parties who failed to perform
under their contracts, Ursula demonstrates
what it means to belong to her.
♪ Now it's happened once or twice ♪
♪ Someone couldn't pay the price ♪
♪ And I'm afraid I had to rake 'em across the coals ♪
- Ariel will be transformed into a polyp
and forced to live in Ursula's garden
for the rest of her life.
So from these circumstances,
from both an objective and subjective perspective,
one would conclude that Ursula
wanted to enter into a contract with Ariel.
And also both parties can claim
to receive some benefit out of this agreement.
Ariel gets legs and Ursula gets an incredible voice
and potentially Ariel's eternal soul.
Totally equal.
Consideration is a requirement for a contract.
So we have a legally sufficient offer
supported by valid consideration.
Now, while acceptance of an offer
can be shown through conduct,
the most common way to signal acceptance
is through signing a document to indicate that you agree
to be bound by the terms of that contract.
Now here, Ursula makes clear
that the contract will only be valid
if Ariel signs the scroll, which Ariel then does.
Now, for a contract to be valid,
you're looking for a meeting of the minds.
You could sign and sometimes you could just verbally say yes
or sometimes your verbal offer
and acceptance could be in song.
That could be totally valid too.
But, hold on a second.
Ariel can read and write.
I mean, I know she gave up her voice
but later on in the movie,
why didn't she just take out a piece of paper
and write, "Dear Eric,
I'm the mermaid who saved you.
A sea witch took my voice
and I have problems with my father.
Let's get married, give me a kiss.
And all this goes away. Business, business contracts.
Xo, Xo, Ariel.
that would've saved a whole bunch of time
and it probably would've worked.
I mean, when's the last time that sailor Eric
even saw a woman?
But I digress.
Now, so far this movie
is a bit of a train wreck or shipwreck.
But if you got into an actual train wreck or a car wreck,
which is far more likely,
you'll probably need a great lawyer,
one who wouldn't have let 16 year old Ariel
sign this contract.
Now, my firm, the Eagle Team, is accepting new clients.
And you are entitled to a free consultation
if you've been injured.
We want to help.
Or if you need a lawyer for anything
that's not under the sea,
we can represent you or help you find the right attorney,
because you don't need a legal team
you need the Eagle team.
Just check out the link in the description.
So now let's think like a lawyer
and let's see if we can get out of this stupid contract.
So now we have established the basic elements of a contract.
We look at whether the contract itself
is legally enforceable.
And as you'll see, Ariel probably has multiple avenues
in which she could have invalidated
or the very minimum, modified the contract,
due to potentially fatal defects in its formation.
Now, first, a contract is considered ambiguous
if the material terms of the contract are reasonably subject
to more than one interpretation,
typically due to a specific word or phrase
that's vague or unclear.
One red flag is a condition
that Ariel must receive a kiss of true love
within three days to remain human.
Now, notwithstanding the weird Disney trope
of falling in love in three days,
the term kiss of true love
is probably an amorphous ill-defined term
or concept in the law.
Now, does Ariel have to marry Prince Eric within three days?
Will just one smooch fulfill the contract?
How do you even prove that it's true love
versus teenage infatuation?
And who decides whether a kiss is a kiss of true love?
Now, it seems like true love is determined
by Disney magic which I believe in, by the way,
for all of you we are adult Disney fans out there.
Please don't swap me.
But in the non-magical realm,
courts can look to a variety of sources
to clarify the party's intentions
regarding ambiguous terms such as common usage,
the party's negotiations or you know,
the judge can simply decide whether one interpretation
would be more reasonable than the other.
And in most jurisdictions,
ambiguities are typically resolved
against the party that drafted the contract.
So that's good news for Ariel.
If this were a contract in a world
where the terms are enforced by the courts
and not by Disney magic, you know,
a judge would likely settle
on the most reasonable interpretation of kiss of true love.
Judging by the party's negotiations,
a reasonable interpretation might be a kiss
that signals the intention
that Ariel and Prince Eric want to get married
though Ariel is 16.
So normally, she couldn't get married at that age
without parental consent.
But maybe Atlantica is off the coast of Alabama
or something.
Alabamica,
I don't know.
But speaking of which, that takes us to capacity
because in order to enter into a valid contract,
parties to an agreement must have
what is known as legal capacity to the contract.
Now that means the parties have to have
the mental ability to understand
and consent to the terms of an agreement.
Examples of those who lack capacity to contract
or those who lack legal competence
due to physical or mental disability
or those who have entered into agreement while intoxicated.
Also important here, in most jurisdictions,
contracts signed by minors are voidable,
meaning that the minor can either honor the deal
or choose to disaffirm the contract
until they turn the age of 18 years old,
which is the most common age of majority.
And a minor that disaffirm the contract
must return any consideration to the other party.
So here Ariel was 16 years old
when she entered in the contract.
Even though the three day period elapsed,
Ariel would still have the power to cancel the agreement
and free herself from Ursula.
Now, I know what you're thinking,
Ursula is a magic sea witch.
Is a lawyer really more powerful
than someone who can wield actual magic?
Yes, yes.
Lawyers are more powerful than a magic sea witch.
And as you can see here,
the power to disaffirm a contract
is exclusive to the minor as the party to the contract.
And in the absence of a parent co-signing the document,
the parent is not liable
for the contracts made by a minor child.
And of course, the minor child
can't be held to that contract if they choose to disaffirm.
Again, I wanna emphasize this,
lawyers are more powerful than a magic sea witch.
Now, of course, instead of opening up
a dialogue with his child
and exercising the rights to disaffirm a contract,
King Triton just substitutes himself
in for the place of Ariel, which goes to show you
that you should actively talk to your children
but also you should always talk to an attorney,
sometimes both.
Now, what you've seen here
is what would be called a novation.
A novation is an agreement
between two contracting parties to allow
for the substitution of a new party for an existing one.
Now, the new party will then be bound by the contract
while the replaced contracting party will be relieved
of all further obligations.
However, both original contracting parties
must agree to the substitution to be valid.
And here, Ariel is very clearly
not approving of the substitution
which makes this novation totally invalid.
And in the absence of Ariel approving the novation
this substitution would not be legally binding on Triton.
Now, on top of that,
there is the question of unconscionability.
Even if we fix the issues of ambiguity and capacity
and for some reason allowed this crazy novation
between father and daughter,
now Ariel's contract provides such harsh terms
that it's probably not legally valid.
The terms for non-performance,
transforming her into a polyp
to live in Ursula's underwater garden for hell,
for the rest of her life,
there's no way that any court
would ever allow that to stand.
But the question is, why?
And that brings us to the concept of unconscionability.
For example, the California Supreme Court
has described the Unconscionability doctrine
as being concerned not
with a simple old-fashioned bad bargain
but with terms that are unreasonably favorable
to the more powerful party.
In other words, courts will enforce a contract
that's just bad for someone
and not substitute in their own judgment
for the contracting party,
but they will not enforce contracts that are overly harsh,
unduly oppressive or so one-sided
as to shock the conscience.
And in making a determination about unconscionability,
courts look to both these substantive aspects of a contract
like, do the terms of the agreement
substantially benefit one party over another?
Does one party have unequal bargaining power over the other?
And does the contract hide material terms in fine print
as well as the procedural aspects leading to the contract?
Did the complaining party have adequate time, resources,
or knowledge to fully understand what they were agreeing to?
And of course here, there's lots of elements
that point to the contract being unconscionable.
Here, Ursula is clearly sophisticated in magic
and magical contracts, while Ariel has no such knowledge
and zero common sense, making Ariel easy to manipulate.
And Ursula did not even recommend
that Ariel could consult a Mer lawyer first
who could have helped to explain
the lifelong ramifications of the agreement.
Although honestly,
Ursula didn't exactly hide the bad terms in fine print,
for all eternity jumps off the page as well as, you know,
the rest of the contract.
But Ursula doesn't give Ariel much time
to think about her options.
And in one four minute song,
Ursula successfully pressures a 16 year old girl,
who is clearly vulnerable, impressionable,
and blinded by a need for approval,
after having been mistreated by her father,
into signing a contract where Ariel's non-performance
will allow Ursula to take literal ownership of Ariel
for basically, eternity.
And also, and I probably don't need to point this out,
it's illegal to own another person.
You cannot enter into a contract
that relates to ownership of another person.
Involuntary servitude was not legal in the 1830s in Denmark
and it's not legal in the United States today
unless you are in prison.
And on that basis,
any effort to take literal ownership of Ariel
for non-performance would be unenforceable.
And then on top of it,
let's just look at the actual contract here.
It's complete gibberish.
It's full of fine print that Ariel clearly does not read
because Ursula cajoles her into signing
before the song ends.
And when the camera zooms in on the fine print,
it's written in some unintelligible language,
I mean, even more unintelligible
than a normal legal contract.
Now, I understand that animation is expensive
but couldn't they have at least put
some actual words on the contract?
I mean, look, there's clearly a drawing of Mickey Mouse
in the middle of a sentence here.
Now, if a court determines
that the contract is unconscionable,
the court can do three things.
First, it can void the entire contract as it never existed
and make the parties return any benefits to each other.
So Ariel would get her voice back
and turn back into a mermaid.
Second, the court could just void the unconscionable terms
and keep the rest of the contract.
So you'd probably strike the enslavement provision
and Ariel would revert to being a mermaid
for non-performance.
And then third, the court could uphold the entire contract
while modifying the unconscionable terms
likely the same effect as voiding the unconscionable terms.
But I don't know, maybe Ariel would then
stay a human in that case.
But regardless, there's no way for Ariel's contract
to be enforceable in its current form.
And on top of that, even if this contract was enforceable,
Ariel's non-performance could absolutely be excused
because Ursula meddled in her performance of the contract.
And this could have actual real world implications
because every contract imposes upon each party
an implied duty of good faith in fair dealing
in the performance and enforcement.
A party breaches these duties when their conduct
actively interferes with the other party's attempts
to fulfill their obligations.
And here behind the scenes,
we can see that Ursula is secretly working to stop Ariel
from performing under the agreement
by preventing Ariel from receiving a kiss of true love.
But for Ursula's interference,
Ariel likely would have received a kiss of true love
within the three day period
as required by the contractual terms.
And as a result of Ursula's bad faith actions,
Ariel would be excused for her non-performance
and would not have reverted back to a mermaid
at the end of the third day
and Ursula would be liable to Ariel
for all damages caused by her interference.
That's if Ariel had had a good lawyer from the very start
to battle this magical sea witch.
But basically, this is a very defective contract
that no one in their right mind would've signed.
And Ursula doesn't make matters better
by actively trying to stop Ariel from performing.
Now, Ariel clearly lacks
some basic critical thinking skills
but if you'd like to be smarter than Ariel
and bone up on your logic, math and science skills
you can do that with today's sponsor, Brilliant,
because not everyone can be a 16 year old
heir apparent to a sea Kingdom.
Brilliant is the best way
to learn Math and Computer Science interactively.
Brilliant is an online learning platform for STEM
that replaces lecture videos
with hands-on interactive lessons.
It's for curious learners both young and old,
professional and inexperienced.
You can quickly learn to ace your high school
or college Math courses
or just learn stuff that you always wanted to.
Brilliant, helps you reach your goals
whether you're a student
or a professional looking to get ahead.
For example their new How Technology Works Course
teaches you the inner workings of everyday technology
from video compression, GPS and computer memory.
And another one of my favorite courses
is all about Logic.
Brilliant's Logic courses
cover liar and truth teller riddles,
logical fallacies, machine logic
and even some strategic game theory.
Logic is of course, a critical skill
that lawyers need every day.
And Brilliant lets you learn by doing
rather than listening to hours of boring lectures.
It's all interactive and fun.
So you can sign up and start learning for free today
by going to brilliant.org/legaleagle
or by clicking on the link that's on screen right now
or down in the description.
If you click on that link, you'll get a free 30 day trial.
Plus the first 200 people who sign up
will get 20% off their annual subscription.
So by clicking on the link below,
you'll get a free 30 day trial
and 20% off your annual subscription to Brilliant.
After that, click on this link over here
for More Legal Eagle or I'll see you in court.