The difference between causeless management and emergency avoidance .

Nice question.

Generally, at first glance, I always think that emergency avoidance and justifiable defense are a group of distinguishing words.

Let's start with that.

Causeless management refers to the act of managing or providing services without statutory or contractual obligations in order to avoid damage to the interests of others.

Emergency evacuation is an act of emergency evacuation that is necessary to protect the state, the public interest, the person, property and other rights of oneself or others from the danger that is occurring.

Distinguish. 1 They differ in the timing of their behavior.

Obviously, causeless management can also be done at ordinary times.

Emergency avoidance is the act of taking place when a danger is occurring.

2. The results of the implementation of the behavior are also different.

Causeless management is the act of managing or providing services to avoid damage to the interests of others. However, he is different from emergency avoidance, which will damage the rights of others, and sacrifice part of the interests to avoid greater losses.

Choose C. Emergency hedging is to protect one legitimate right and damage another legitimate right and right, and there is a vicarious relationship between 2 and the right, that is, the second legal right is the meaning of death on behalf of the first legal right and right. There is no statutory or contractual obligation to manage the requirements of management of non-cause management: 1 the act of managing other people's things, 2 the intention of managing other people's things, and 3, that is, as long as the manager fulfills the obligation of a good manager, it can be determined regardless of whether it brings interest to the person being managed.

The destruction of the gate in this question is a step in the management process, and there is no substitute relationship with the salvation of life, so it is determined that there is no cause management. Personal opinions, criticism and correction are welcome.

Causeless management reflects the moral requirements of society for citizens, where B's suicide has nothing to do with A, and A does not bear positive or negative rescue obligations, so it should conform to the concept of causeless management. Emergency avoidance means that although the parties know that taking emergency measures will cause losses to the interests of others or the public welfare, but cannot avoid it due to force majeure, they can only take emergency measures to protect their own safety. Mainly for self-interest, it seems that the topic has nothing to do with emergency avoidance?

Does breaking down the door hurt small interests? Is it a good interest to stop suicide? Do you know that breaking the door will harm the small interests of others? Is it an emergency to avoid danger?

Causeless management here to prevent suicide and break the door ** reflects the management behavior?

This title is multiple choice, ac.

Reason for choosing A: the right to property, the right to life.

Reason for choosing C: Meet the constituent elements of causal management.

I can't tell the difference between causeless management and emergency avoidance, and now that I read your point of view, I'm completely confused!