Legally Binding

How was Ursula wrong? I understand the morality of taking someone's voice, but she was just being a normal businesswoman er-- octopus lady. This poor, sad, lovestricken fifteen year old came to her willing to do anything to change for this hot prince she'd met six minutes ago and somehow Ursula is the bad guy? According to basically every online site there is, you only have to be thirteen years old to sign a legally bingind contract, and it said in the contract in big letters that Ariel was granting Ursula her voice for all of eternity. How is that bad? For the record, I found Ariel's incessant singing to be insufferable so I wasn't complaining that she couldn't woo this guy with her dinglehopper song. Plus, there are ways they could have communicated. Ariel could've taken up sign language or written love letter and notes like Beethoven did. If she couldn't write, she could do charades. It's been a decade or so since I've seen The Little Mermaid (and I am not planning on seeing it again anytime soon because Kid Me found her insufferable), but really, how was Ursula the bad guy when this idiot child signed the contract and gave Ursula her voice? Next, people are going to be convincing me that Google is bad for making such a long contract that no one reads.