Answer:
We
* are interdependent with the other drivers.
* perceive the other drivers as an interference.
* perceive that we and the other drivers have incompatible goals
Explanation:
Driving a car is the act of moving cars around most especially on the road. This is done in order to be able to reach our destination in earnest.
Driving a car could be challenging and frustrating sometimes despite the fact that it is advantageous.
This is because there are so many people that drive recklessly and dangerously, and who intentionally violate the traffic rules, and subsequently causing havoc to the other drivers on the road.
In this case, people become frustrated because they see or perceive the other drivers as an interference, and also perceive that they and the other drivers have incompatible goals.
I believe the right answer is B.it allowed companies to manufactured large numbers of identical products
Likely rule against Mark.
Mark and Charles had an oral agreement over a few years and nothing was put into writing. This would trigger the statute of frauds, wherein certain types of agreements are required to be memorialized in writing.
This means that there is a situation in which two people are having to be taken at their word. On top of that, the agreement was made while they were impaired.
If a court didn't rule against Mark at the outset, there would be an investigation into whether the agreement was enforceable, how impaired they were, whether anyone else heard them, and what the historic uses were but there isn't enough time for a prescriptive easement or adverse possession. But this is likely a summary judgment case based on statute of frauds.
<span>People have different cultures and traditions which greatly influence
their rights and needs as citizens of their countries. To guarantee one’s
rights is to look deeply within his values and beliefs as well as trace back
the history why these values were formed in the first place, which will take a
lifetime of observation. This means, the main problem here is time against the rights
of the people which needs to be quickly acted upon. A utopian world is impossible
but in order to hopefully, guarantee the people’s rights, one must decide which
right is applicable across cultures to avoid conflicts of interest.</span>
