Analyzing The Case Of Commercial Activities Infringing Upon Tranquility Right

With the development of modern economy, the relations betweenpeople become closer in space but more alienated in mind, which leadsthem to look forward to a peaceful life. However, the imperfection of thesystem of the right of personality in our country makes some commercialactivities that infringe others’ peaceful interests can’t be restraint andtranquility can’t be properly protected. For example, people are alwaysbeing disturbed by various spam messages, crank calls as well as noisesof construction during nights, which greatly influence others’ daily livingand working, even psychological or mental health.The purpose of this thesis is to analyze the case of tranquility beinginfringed by commercial activities and to assess the Legitimacy andRationality of the judgment from every controversial point so that we canclear that tranquility should be properly protected, furthermore should getits own independent position in specific personality right.The first part is to basically introduce the case, including the opinionof plaintiff and defendant, trial conditions in the courts of the first andsecond instance, like basis and result, and make these controversial pointsclear.The second part is to define the term “Tranquility Right” and thescope of it. Then distinguish tranquility right from privacy, reputation, personal freedom, environment right and neighboring right, thus furtherclearing the scope of tranquility right.Therefore prove that the legalrights claimed by the plaintiff belong to the scope of tranquility right.The third part is to analyze the plaintiff’s legal basis, namelywhether his or her tranquility should be legally protected and this civilright should have its own independent legal position. First prove theprotection of tranquility has become an international trend from the legalsystems in other countries. Then list the judicial precedents of peacefulinterests’ protection in our judicial practice and examples of claiming theright of tranquility in reality by analyzing the controversy inthe theoretical circle of law and the judiciary circle in our country inorder to explain that the right of tranquility has its own realistic basis,meanwhile to refute the opinion that the protection of tranquility will leadto the situation “Generalization of civil right”. Thus bringing theconclusion that tranquility right should be independently protected. In thiscase, the plaintiff did not claim for the protection of his tranquility rightbecause of the lack of legal regulations. The judge also agrees that theplaintiff has tranquility right, but did not clearly bring it up because of thecurrent regulations.The fourth part is to further analyze the commitment of liability fortort. First analyze the constitutive requirements of the tort of tranquilityright. Then analyze the forms of torts for the defendant, including extending a formal apology, even compensating for spiritual damagesaccording to the degree of torts. As for compensating for spiritualdamages, my opinion is that compensating the plaintiff for spiritualdamages is reasonable under the protection of tranquility right.The fifth part is to conduct a summative evaluation forthe judge’s decision. The judge considered that the defendant’s behaviordisturbs the plaintiff’s normal work and life, thus made a judgment thatthe defendant should make an apology to the plaintiff. But, in my opinion,the judge did not support the plaintiff’s moral damage is unreasonable.