had not “exercised due diligence” in seeking employment. Wife was approximately seven years younger than husband and was obviously in better health. Assuming wife would obtain a job, there would be no appreciable change in her standard of living, since husband was making approximately $20,000 per year before his accident and wife would apparently make an adequate income. In enacting Civil Code section 4801, the Legislature intended “that all supported spouses who were able to do so should seek employment” and that “courts would issue orders encouraging these spouses to seek employment . . . .” (In re Marriage of Morrison, supra, 20 Cal.3d at p. 451.) Although the trial court perhaps could have directed husband to pay spousal support for a brief period while wife looked for employment (<HOLDING>), the fact that a more liberal award might have
recognizing implied duty to produce and market recognizing implied duty to market recognizing that rates awarded in other cases do not set the prevailing market rateonly the market can do that recognizing the limited market currently in the teaching profession holding that changes in the baseball card market between 1965 and 1980 foreclosed any argument that a definition of the relevant market by the federal trade commission could preclude relitigation of the market definition issue