The National Cosumer Affairs Centre compiled a result of consumer detriment in Japan since October 2008.

How amount of expense can a landlord asks to pay a tenant? The Kyoto District Court ruled that the agreement, which imposed a tenant a burden to pay a certain amount of compensation of repairing house of tenant, was void due to violation of the Consumer Contract Law on 30th September 2009.

Even if a customer fails to pay insurance premium, a life insurance company does not always have a title of discharging  the contract by the violation of the contract; it may be against the Consumer  Contract Law;art.10 of the law makes an article void which may harm  a consumer interest one sided. The Tokyo Appeal Court ruled it on 30th September 2009, overturned the judgment of the Yokohama District Court.

In the case, the plaintiff delayed a payment of insurance premium in January 2007.  The customer had been making payment through an automated bank transfer; but in January 2007, the insurance premium was not paid by the lack of balance of bank deposit.  According to the contract, if a customer failed a monthly payment until the end of next month, the contract was dissolved automatically without any warning by the company; therefore the insurance company insisted it by the article.  The customer claimed that the article was void by virtue of violation of the Consumer Contract Law and the contract was still continuing.

Although the original court, Yokoyama district court, rejected the complaint of the plaintiff, the appeal court overturned it and approved the argument of the plaintiff. The appeal court said that in the case of payment by an automated bank transfer, slight thoughtfulness or procedure carelessness may cause a lapse of contract. As it invited a critical disadvantage to a customer, the court ruled that the article was void against the article 10. 

Disputes  over solar panel sales are increasing gradually;  a recent report of the National Consumer Affairs Centre warns. Whilst the number of the disputes was 1,719 in 2008 fiscal year, whereas it was 1,418  in 2007 fiscal year.  This tendency continues in this year. About 80% of the disputes are conducted be doorstep selling.

On 20th August 2009, the National Consumer Affairs Centre reported the  result of ADR procedure until 14th August 2009. The number of applications was 30.  

According to the report.,  cases were finished; 2 cases were settled whereas 2 cases were unsettled and 1 case was dropped.

Japanese government decided to start a discussion concerning Civil Law reform in Legislative Council of the Ministry of Justice.  The Asahi Shinbun reported on 23th August 2009.

Our Civil Law had been enacted in 1896, and a part of the law, such a family law, was revised after the World War Ⅱ; but other articles of the code remained as they were.

ACCJ welcomes increasing of the number of lawyers in Japan. However many lawyers in Japan seem to stand on a denying position to the opinion; the reason may be due to public interest rather than their own interest.

In commodity futures transaction, broker-dealers may buy or sell futures over their own position along with customers’ position on commission.

Certainly, Commodity Futures Transaction allow their activity legitimately. Whilst they should have Chinese wall between their own dealing to dealing on commissions, their trading position may be contrary to their customers’ position. Attorneys of customers claim that the broker-dealers should make their position clear to their customers due to their good faith or fiducially duties; however, lower court rulings have been divided for two decades.

The Supreme Court eventually concluded in this controversial issue on 16th July 2009; in the ruling, broker-dealers have reveal their own position to their existing customers, whenever they make own dealings in oppsition to their customers’ position.

The National Consumer Affairs Centre warns doorstep sales troubles of propane gas increasing, especially in Kanto district, reported on 9th July 2009.  1,258 cases were revealed in consumer centers in 2008; It is 1.3 times increase compared to the figure in 2007.

Money lenders who obtain repayments as a result of the performance of debtors without legal grounds for doing so is under a duty to make restitution to them with late charges based on art.704 of the Civil Code, if they know that they have no right to be able to hold excessive interest beyond a rate stipulated in the Interest Rate Ristriction Law.

Fursthermore, debtors claims 6% annum of existence restitution based on the Commercial Law which stiplates such figure differing from the Civil Code; it is because the money lenders are in position to be able to take advantage of excessive repayment as commercial interest rate.

The Supreme Court, on 10th July 2009,  concluded  that the money lenders had no obligation  to pay 5% annum as late charge based on art. 704 of the Civil Code, in case  they received the repayment from debtors prior to the Supreme Court ruling on 13th July 2007 ; the Supreme court ruled that debtors did not perform their duty in voluntary, in case their payment were excessive against the Interest Rate Limitation Law, even if money lenders receive performance by debtors in conformity with the Money Lenders Law.

Same ruling was held on 14th July 2oo9 by the Supreme Court.