Hi again…..

Short late night comments on today’s lecture.

I am pretty empty in my head right now. I have been grading tax exams after I came home from today’s lecture and it is getting late so I don’t know what to write.

The time went so fast today. I was afraid I did not have enough material with me but I must have talked a lot because I did not have time to go through everything I wanted 🙁 . I am so lucky that I can compensate my mistake by giving you a Webinar on Monday morning at 9 am 🙂 . I will put out a link to the Webinar on the homepage tomorrow.

It is very important that you read the Directive 95/46/EC and also the case C-101/01 before Monday morning. I will summarize the Directive and guide you through the case on the Webinar.

I need to get some sleep now
Take care 🙂
Best regards,
Krister

14 Responses to “Mälardalen University, Introduction to Commercial Law, Lecture 5”

  1. I liked yesterday’s lecture very much. You explained very clearly and it was interesting. Thank you 🙂

  2. Thats true: it was a good lecture and I really like the way you explain smth (the example with the kids etc), you know how to explain difficult stuff to people who have no previous knowledge about law. I´m happy that I understood everything and looking forward to your next lecture 🙂

  3. Thank’s a lot 😉

  4. I think this was the best lecture so far and the relationship between treaties and directives are starting to take shape (from my personal point of view) and a bigger picture being painted with the compendium.

  5. Should we read every article in the directive or just the one you mentioned (Art 1- 15 and 32 and 34)?

  6. Hej,

    Me, and everybody I asked during the break of todays lecture (and Ingers previous lectures), are having serious problems with following Ingers lectures.
    We do really don´t want to hurt her because we think she´s a nice and friendly lady, but I think she already recognized that we´re having problems with her explanations in the lecture.

    She seems to be confuesed with the things shes talking about and she cannot explain it in a way that we understand it. Today many people keep asking her so many questions (during and after the lecture) and everything she said confuesed us even more…

    I really don´t want to blame her of being a bad teacher, but we´re all confuesed and frustrated of not understanding a lot after her lectures and since you told us in the beginning that we should say smth before the course ends we really thought that we should tell you how we feel.
    I am personally scared of failing the exam or the seminar even that I study a lot for this course. I just feel stupid and depressed now and I hope that Inger doesn´t understand this as a causeless accusation, it should rather be a cry for help and a reason to improve the teaching.

    • Hi

      OK, thank you for sharing your thoughts and your worry for not understanding the subjects that is presented on the lectures.

      I know that some parts of Law are very difficult when you study Law for the first time. It is of course important that our presentations starts at a level that most of you can follow and then, as time goes by, we can go into more complex questions. Maybe we are going too fast to higher levels?

      I will discuss this with Inger and then I will come back to you with some feedback.

      Meanwhile, don’t worry – be happy :), we will do our best to help you pass the exams, that’s what we are here for.

      Take care
      Best regards,
      Krister

  7. Its not about the content of the lecture,I know law is hard to understand,but if we have this direct comparison of you and Ingers teaching we understand your way of explaining smth so much more-again its nothing personal,we just want to learn smth-that should be the common goal of us!

    • Hi again

      I understand what you mean but the comparison is not fair.
      Inger’s subjects, so far, has been much more difficult compared to mine. Wait and see after I have gone through IP-Law, Competition Law and Public Procurement 😉 then you will have a better perspective. But as I said before we will discuss it.

      Best regards,
      Krister

  8. I found todays lecture got off to a bad start with people disrupting the lecture, by turning up late and being extremely loud in the process. There was also continuous chatting for the whole lecture.

    There were many questions about when CISG is applicable or not. It wasn’t so obvious from just reading the article in the book, but Inger had to explain the same thing several times from different perspectives, with different examples, which should have been enough. The slides also explain this adequately with examples. I felt the questions were repetitive and confused the situation, more than the answers given.

    It is difficult to a certain point, but people were over complicating it and making it more difficult that it needs to be, from my point of view. Inger nor Krister are here to trick us.
    For example, two questions asked whilst Inger was explaining Article 14 and 55. were; agreeing to sell a car for 60,000kr, but then sending a bill for 70,000kr or about being in court with kronofogden. These had no relationship with Article 14 or 55 and this was clear, just from actually reading them.

    As students we also have to take responsibility for reading the articles, having the book open on the right pages and googling the meaning of words and terms that we are unsure about.

    Finally, I would like to suggest having the door open until 5 minutes after the lecture has begun then you are not allowed in until the next break to prevent disruption for students there in time.

    • I really agree with the last post above this. One issue is that many students does not seem to read anything at all to prepare themselves for the lectures. Well then, of course the content of them will seem kind of abstract and hard to follow.

      While I don´t want to seem angry or anything like that, it would not hurt some students NOT to fire away every single question that pops up in their heads during the lectures. I mean, try to understang the explainations given by both Inger and Krister, go home and read about it (if that´s not too much trouble…), and if many questions remain unanswered, send an e-mail or make a blog entry here. As was said in the previous post, many questions are in fact totally irrelevant. Such ”personal” questions should perhaps be brought up during the breakes and after the lectures.

      And, as mentioned above, the lectures does not become any easier to follow due to the constant small talk and people being late, both for the beginning of the lectures, and even after every break. It´s really annoying and disrespectful, to the student as well as the teachers.

      In summary, I would make the somewhat ”bold” statement that the behaviour and the constant (irrelevant) questions from us student, actually is the main denominators that some lectures becomes hard to follow, not the content of the very lectures.

      • I agree with parts of ALL the comments above, not the harsh wording of everything but the main ideas. I think that the lectures we have had with Inger have been hard to follow, partly due to the fact that people are asking questions about things that are easily understood if everyone has read the book (at least the CISG book as it is quite straight forward and clearer than the EU law book, according to many of us it seems), however it is quite hard to be prepared for a lecture when we’re not given reading instructions beforehand. In this last lecture we started focusing on the beginning of the convention/book, but as this is not always the case in our law studies it isn’t possible to make assumptions about where to start reading and this makes it harder to be prepared for lectures. I think that we can make the lectures work, if Inger gives us reading instructions a bit earlier, and we make sure we come prepared, and most of all, let Inger finish talking before we ask questions (that she might answer anyway if we don’t interrupt). A little give and take might be the answer? I thinkt that the overheads for the last lecture where a lot clearer than the ones for EU law, so maybe it has a bit to do with the subject we’re studying like Krister wrote?
        Don’t get me wrong, I’m also very concerned about EU law, and didn’t feel that the lectures were as clear and pedagogical as I thought they would be on an introductory level course. It seemed like the lectures where more about giving reading instructions ”on this page you can read about this on you own” instead of giving explanations. But perhaps this is the only way to learn about EU law, reading about it on your own?
        However, I don’t think that its fair to blame all our problems on Inger nor do I belive that it all responsibility lie on us students, and making anonymous comments of the sort seem misdirected and quite low. I’m worried about my law studies, but think that we can work it out together, don’t you others?

  9. It’s our freedom to come up with related questions concerning the lecture notes’ detail , and I think there is not enough time for a person to finish reading the ppt also the related articles in the book between the time the ppt is published and the related lecture otherwise you need a good background of law, so no questions are without sense.

Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Denna webbplats använder Akismet för att minska skräppost. Lär dig hur din kommentardata bearbetas.

© 2019 Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha