There are people who believe that they have the authority to influence their colleagues to do as per their wishes. These people do not care about others’ rights and freedoms. It is the duty of society to ensure that such people are dealt with accordingly. Every person has the right to conduct him or herself in whichever manner provided he or she does not infringe on other people’s life. It is also advised that if one’s actions appear to affect the lives of people around him or her, there are proper measures that can be taken. It is always good to first warn the person before taking astringent action that may affect both of the parties adversely (Kendall Par. 1). The fact that Labor was unhygienic did not give Rory the green light to cut his hair. He was supposed to take time, discuss with Labory how his behavior is affecting him and help him to change. This could have helped him in reforming. Alternatively, he could have shifted from the apartment. It is illegal to interfere with other people’s way of life in an attempt to impress oneself.
By Amory approaching Shelly, it was not against the law bearing in mind that they knew each other before. It was within his rights to greet and talk to whoever person was invited to the party. Having intimacy with a person does not confer one the power over that person with respect to the kind of people to talk or relate with. Cory did not have the right to interfere with Amory’s discussion with Shelly even if he was the one who invited her to the party. By taking Amory’s phone, he proved to disrespect his freedom. It did not matter to him whether Shelly had given Amory her phone number. It was her privilege to give her number to whoever she found worth. His intrusions into their talk led to the flare-up of all the conflicts that followed. Amory has a legal right to sue Cory for an attempted assault. Had Cory left them to go on with their talk, they could not have engaged in any conflict. It was Amory’s nature to relate with ladies and this did not imply that he had a hidden agenda towards Shelly. Cory’s actions were baseless as Shelly was the grown-up lady who had her own rights ad freedoms. Intruding into people’s affairs without their consent is an offense and can lead to one being detained. Filing a case against him would be successful as the way he conducted himself was against the stipulated laws that govern personal freedom of association (Kendall Par.3-5).
In every state, there is a body that is entitled to ensure that all products from its industries are certified to be good for us. The body is responsible for ensuring that every product, before being released to the market, has met several standards to ensure the safety of those who use it. The issue of Great Toaster Inc. producing toasters that do not meet their purpose raises the question of whether the products were approved by the respective body before being introduced to the market. It is required that every electronic good have instructions on how to use. Many people purchase these appliances without the knowledge of the dangers they pose if not used accordingly. Labor had a legal right to take action against the company. It is the liability of the company to foresee some of the risks that their products may pose to the public and ensure that they are properly manufactured. Making a toaster that is easy to open and modify, poses a great threat to most of the people who are generally interested in knowing more about how the product works. The company was required to ensure that the toaster was hard to open and modify. It was their responsibility to include guidelines on how to use the toaster. Bearing in mind all these conditions were not met by the company, Labory needed to file a case against Great Toaster Inc. He had the right to be compensated for injuries inflicted due to the negligence of the company. By him arguing that the company did not include instructions on the use of the toaster he was likely to emerge victoriously.
One has the right to invite or not to invite a person to his or her function. It is illegal for a person or group to organize to disrupt any function simply because they were not invited. Cory had the liberty not to invite students from Northwestern University to his party. Their intention to crash the party was illegal and required stern actions to be taken against them. Their action led to them breaking the fence. This added an insult to an injury. Despite them being injured by grasses, Cory was entitled to take legal action against them for interrupting his function. They did not have the right to force themselves into a party that they were not invited to (Kendall Par.6). This can be considered as an intrusion that is against the law.
It is the responsibility of every person that is driving to obey traffic rules. The law states that every driver is entitled to obey all the set traffic rules unless authorized otherwise by the traffic or police officer. This is also exceptional in cases where traffic control devices are located in positions that are hard for drivers to spot them. It is assumed that all traffic control devices are installed as a direction from lawful authorities and thus all drivers are subject to obeying them. Most of the time, motorists tend to slow but then roll if they happen to getaway regardless of whether the rights are indicating that they are supposed to stop. This has led to many accidents occurring in these cities which are expected to be the most secure. Shelly is not exceptional to these rules. Despite her anger, she was required to be mindful of other road users by driving responsibly. Her anger did not qualify her to be defiant of the traffic rights. The old lady had a legal right to sue Shelly for her irresponsible driving. It is not an excuse to say that she was under anger. The law stipulates clearly that one should always obey the traffic rules whenever he or she is on the road. On approaching the traffic lights, Shelly was expected to decelerate and come to a halt. Based on the traffic rules, Shelly had violated the law and this could lead to her being penalized. Bearing in mind that she is a qualified driver, it would seem as ignorance of traffic rules which is tantamount to punishment (Mionske Par. 2-4).
For a healthy relation, every person is supposed to keep to the stipulated rules and to always ensure that he or she does not interfere with the rights and freedoms of his or her acquaintances in pursuit of personal comfort.
Works cited
Kandall Jason. “Personal Rights versus personal Responsibilities.” 2009. Web.
Mionske, Bob. “Making better laws.” 2009. Web.