The inducement of purchasing an apartment varies. Some people do it to enjoy fireworks. If their enjoyment is disturbed by other apartment build after their purchasing, is it possible to claim payment of damage compensation to the selling company of his flat?
Case
If the later flat was build by the property agent who also sold the claimant’s flat, there is possibility to claim somehow damage. The Tokyo District Court ruling on December 8th 2006 was such case.Sumida river fireworks festival is operated in August. That is one of the most famous fireworks in Japan. Defendant, who was real estate agent, advertised that purchasers could enjoy the fireworks from the flat. The plaintiffs, who believed the defendant’s advertisement, purchased their flats on construction from defendant. Their purposes of were enjoying those fireworks. The contract was formed in May 2003 and the defendant was performed them in October the same year.However, the defendant started to build another apartment in the location between plaintiff’s apartment and the Sumida River since May 2004. Therefore, the plaintiffs were to be impossible enjoying the Sumida fireworks. The claimants stated that the defendant knew or was likely to know the purpose of plaintiffs purchasing and that the construction of the other apartment disturbing plaintiffs’ vista of fireworks was against good faith. The amount of damage the plaintiffs claimed was JPY 3,500,000 each as their mental distress.
Tokyo District Court decision
The court approved the plaintiff’s claim, stated as follows: the defendant knew or was likely to know above mentioned plaintiffs’ purchasing intention; the defendant had a duty not disturbing the plaintiffs’ possible vista to the Sumida River in good faith; notwithstanding, the defendant constructed the other apartment interfering the plaintiff’s vista only 1 year after his selling to the plaintiffs.The ruling said that the defendant did not seem to take suitable care to the plaintiffs’ interest of vista until starting construction of the other apartment; even after starting construction, the defendant also failed the honest attitude to the plaintiffs. In conclusion, the ruling ordered the defendant to pay JPY 660000 as mental distress damage to the plaintiff.Prior the above mentioned decision, the Sapporo District Court on March 31st 2004 did similar decision.
Comment
These ruling admitted the duty based on good faith even after the defendant performance finished. However the requirements of the duty are still ambiguous and it is vague how long does that kind of the defendant’s duty continue.
