Law reform progressing
The Consumer Contract Act 2000 (the CCA) is now assessed in the advisory panel of Prime Minister. On the other hand, the METI develops to revise the Specific Trading Practices Act (the STPA). The jurisdiction of two laws is apart in different ministry; the jurisdiction of the CCA is the Cabinet Office and the STPA is administrated by the METI. Therefore the revision of the STPA is discussed in the advisory panel attached to the Minister of the Economic, Trade and industry.
Scope of these laws
Whilst both laws are for consumer protection and regulate the unfair commercial practices, the scope is different. The scope of the CCL is both the unfair commercial practices, applied to all contract between a consumer and a trader. On the other hand, the jurisdiction of the STPA is narrower than the CCA. The STPA is only applied in six trading types: a) the doorstep selling, b) the distance selling, c) telephone selling, d) multi-level marketing scheme, e) the work-in-home scheme and f) the transaction of continuous term in nature. In addition, the STPA applies to the transaction specified goods, services and rights in the order.
Misleading practice
In both laws, the scope of misleading practice seems narrower than the EC unfair commercial practices directive. In addition, the scope of the misleading practice is slight different between the CCA and the STPA.
The practice that the CCA prohibit as a misleading action is limited a false representation and a preparation of asserting opinion distorting the economic decision by consumer. The act also prohibits the omission of significant fact that is disadvantageous for the trader.
The STPA imposes a similar prohibition as the CCA, but the act does not stipulate the prohibition of preparation of ascertaining economic opinion. On the other hand, the STPA prohibit the misleading action of a trader concerning the inducement to decide to make a contract.
Aggressive practice
Certainly, it is not suitable to compare simply between the CCA and the EC directive, neglecting the difference of the offence. However, the prohibition of the aggressive trading practice in the CCA seems quite narrow. The act only forbids the undue influence as tow kind of practice: not to leave from consumer’s home and not to release a consumer from the business premise.
Otherwise, the scope of the undue influence of the STPA is wider than the CCA. But the breach of the CCA is voidable whereas there is no civil sanction against the undue influence provision of the STPA. To the aggressive practice violating the STPA, only administrative order is imposed.
