0
Following
0
Follower
0
Boost

Benefits of studying in groups!

Regularly organized group study sessions might help you avoid procrastination if you put off studying until the last minute. You'll have a specific period for studying and will be held accountable to your classmates, so you'll be less prone to procrastinate on your studies. Students who study in groups learn more quickly than those who study alone. You can ask your other group members questions to assist you to comprehend if you don't understand something. Having someone explain your misunderstandings saves you time that would otherwise be spent attempting to figure out tough concepts on your own. When you study in a group, you can compare your notes with those of other pupils. You can observe how other students take notes and correct any flaws you may have if you aren't a great note-taker. If you take excellent notes, you can assist your classmates in filling in the blanks with their notes. Being a member of a study group allows you to observe various study approaches. Your study methods may be effective, but you may be able to improve your skills by incorporating new approaches used by your group study participants. Spending a lot of time studying alone can become tedious. Joining a study group can help you study in a more sociable setting. Individuals in study groups can generally learn more quickly than students working alone. You can observe how other students take notes and correct any flaws you may have if you aren't a great note-taker. If you take excellent notes, you can assist your classmates in filling in the blanks with their notes. Being a member of a study group allows you to observe various study approaches. Your study methods may be effective, but you may be able to improve your skills by incorporating new approaches used by your group study participants. Art integrated learning is a very good way of learning. Joining a study group can help you study in a more sociable setting. Individuals in study groups can generally learn more quickly than students working alone. For example, a section of the textbook that you find extremely perplexing may be completely plain to another student.

Defendant suppliers sought review of a decision

Procedural Posture Defendant suppliers sought review of a decision of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which entered a judgment in favor of plaintiff purchaser in his suit for breach of contract. Overview The purchaser alleged that the suppliers agreed to deliver eggs to him as soon as they could be transported by rail and that, although they arrived in the purchaser's city on July 8th, the suppliers did not deliver them until July 14th. The purchaser claimed that he was damaged by the delay because the price of eggs had depreciated between the 8th and the 14th. The court ruled that the trial court erred in permitting the purchaser to testify that he had a contract to sell eggs for a particular price but that, due to the suppliers' failure to deliver them in time, he lost the sale. The price agreed upon between the purchaser and others in no way connected with the suppliers was incompetent to establish the market value of the eggs or the liability of the suppliers. The trial court also erred in permitting a witness to state the reduction in the price of eggs between the 8th and the 18th. The damages claimed by the purchaser were sustained by him, according to the allegations of his complaint, between the 8th and 14th. Thus any evidence showing the market value of eggs subsequent to the 14th was inadmissible. Outcome: certificate of incumbency The court reversed the trial court's decision.

District Court of Appeal

Procedural Posture Real parties in interest in a breach of contract action were granted a hearing to review a decision from the District Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, which issued an alternative writ of prohibition and granted a peremptory writ preventing respondent county court from enforcing a discovery order in petitioner's breach of contract action. Overview Petitioner brought an action against the real parties in interest, seeking damages arising from the alleged breach of an oral contract. The real parties in interest sought an order to require petitioner to produce recorded conversations or in the alternative for a protective order. The trial court stayed the depositions pending its decision and concluded that before petitioner could take depositions, the real parties in interest were entitled to inspect and transcribe the recordings. On appeal of the grant of a peremptory writ, the court held that: (1) because permitting the depositions to proceed would have denied the real parties in interest an effective ruling on the timing of the discovery proceedings, the trial court could reasonably have concluded that the denial of a stay would have constituted "annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression;" (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering petitioner to provide the necessary identifying date known to him so that it could rule on the issue before it; and (3) petitioner's delay in prosecuting the action and fairness fully justified the trial court's exercise of discretion in staying the depositions. Outcome: Labor Code 970 The court discharged the appellate court's issuance of an alternative writ and denied petitioner a peremptory writ.

The Superior Court of San Diego County

Procedural Posture Appellant home purchaser sued respondent seller's agent, alleging failure to disclose defective subfloors. The Superior Court of San Diego County, California, found that the claim was without legal or evidentiary support and that continued maintenance of the suit demonstrated objective bad faith warranting the sanctions under Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, of dismissal and $60,000 for attorney fees. The purchaser and appellant attorney sought review. Overview The court of appeal held that the trial court acted within its discretion in awarding the Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, sanctions. The record supported that no reasonable attorney would have concluded that the statutory and common law claims against the agent were factually and legally supported. In particular, the facts admitted by the purchaser showed that during escrow the agent provided the purchaser with photographs and reports disclosing problems with the residence's subflooring, satisfying his legal obligations to the buyer. Having provided this information, the agent—who served only as the sellers' listing agent—did not owe the buyer any additional statutory or common law duties, and there was nothing in his communications that would have misled a reasonable buyer. The claims were inconsistent with the admitted facts and well-settled law, and the record reflected that the purchaser's trial counsel had no reasonable belief in the validity of the claims. Outcome: sexual harassment defense lawyer The court affirmed the judgment.