Standard Terms In The Revisions Of Japanese Civil Code

On March 31, 2015, the Japanese government proposed amendment of the revisions in the Japanese Civil Code, specifically law of obligation in the cabinet meeting. The amendment would be carried out in three years if it is passed. This was the first massive revisions since Japanese Civil Code was legislated at the year of 1896. This amendment includes over 200 projects, which can have a lot influences on Japanese national life. It is quite necessary to fundamentally revise the Japanese Civil Code considering it has been through about 120 years with the change of domestic situation and the new trend of international social development. Even though the individual business law has set up relevant provisions of the standard terms, there are no special provisions about the standard terms in the Japanese Civil Code.As one of the new contents of this amendment, the standard terms have 4 aspects: definition, consensus, the expression of the content, and the alteration. Based on the standard terms in the revisions of law of obligation, and combined with previous jurisprudence and doctrine, this paper carried on detailed studies of Japanese standard terms. Specifically, the revisions of the law of obligation clearly defined standard terms. It is in the fixed-type transaction terms prepared by a particular person to be concluded into a contract for the purpose of overall. The parties reached an agreement on the standard terms into contracts. Or the person who prepared standard terms had already informed the other party the standard terms will be concluded into the contract in advance, regarded as the individual terms of the contract reached a consensus on the standard terms. The amendment provided for standard term’s instructions obligations. If the other party request, the person who prepared standard terms must disclosure the contents of the standard terms using an appropriate manner without any delay at a considerable period of time before or after a given type of transaction desirable, in addition to the standard terms have been delivered to the other party. Also the revisions in the law of obligation prescribed alteration of standard terms. The content of the standard terms is in line with the general interests of the other party, not against the purposes of the contract, and it is a reasonable in accordance with the matters relating to alter. Even if the person who prepared standard terms would not reach an agreement with the other party individually, still alter the standard terms.Based on the provisions of standard terms in Chinese Contract Law and the standard terms in the revisions of law of obligation above, it has certain reference significance to our country. First of all, compared with direct identify of the contract invalid, Japan stipulates that if there are limited rights or increases the obligation clauses, according to fixed trading patterns, realities and society usual traded concepts, which breach the fiduciary principles of civil law unilateral damage the interests of the other party, can be seen as no consensus. The party of a contract to enter into a contract is mainly in order to get fulfilled. Directly identifying the contract invalid may be contrary to the original intention of the party of a contract. Secondly, it is not explicitly stipulated on whether should apply to the other party’s agreement. It is more appropriate that the standard terms becoming the contract content should meet the other party’s agreement. What’s more, compared with Chinese requirements of taking reasonable way to draw attention of the other party to absolution or limit its responsibility of clauses, Japan stipulates more precisely, which provides that under the situation which the other party proposes requirements, the standard terms content should be expressed in an appropriate way without delay. And only in the situation which the express has difficult, it cannot subject to the limit. The principle of express is more conducive to the production of the other party. Finally, we don’t have relative legislation about standard terms altering in current, and to some extent we can reference some relevant provisions about Japan standard terms altering.