The Consumer Contract Law prohibits the misrepresentation. The notion has two categories. First is the misrepresentation, and the second is the assertion to uncertain issues in fluctuation in future, such as a price of goods.
The notion of assertion has been developing in the fields of financial services laws such as the Commodity Futures Trading Law (sec. 214(1)(i)) and the Financial Products Trading Law (sec. 38(1)(iii)). However, the aspect of the presentation is different from the Consumer Contract Law. For instance, in the Financial Products Trading Law says that the trader is prohibited to solicit the customer to assert the element in future as certainty in spite of uncertainty in truth, or to make the customer misbelieve to be certainty in spite of uncertainty in coming events or element such as a value of securities.
In the followed case of the Osaka Appeal Court , the meaning of assertion was argued. The plaintiff was enrolled in the defendant school of study of divination, paid the matriculation fee and purchased supplemental goods such as a stamp. The plaintiff claimed to rescind this contract, because defendant school asserted the plaintiff in the fluctuated matter in his future.In June 30, 2004, The Osaka Appeal Court ruled that the solicitation was not coming under the assertion, because it meant the difficulty to predict the future event related affection to the profit on property. And it said that the solicitation of the defendant only said the uncertainty fate of him in future, and it was not evaluated as assertion.
However the court accepted the claim of the plaintiff in different reason. It was because the amount of matriculation fee and price of supplemental goods was so extraordinary high that the contract was void; the solicitation was unfair for the purpose of getting excessive profit and the practice was offensive to public order and morals (civil code: sec. 90).
