Information Duties in Relation to the Ownership and Transfer of Rights to Objects and Other Assets under Japanese Civil Law

I. Introduction | II. General Theory behind the Information Duty | 1. Information Duty for the Security of Self-determination | 2. Information Duty for the Achievement of the Contractual Purpose | III. Analysis of Cases Regarding the Information Duty in Relation to the Ownership and Transfer of Rights to Objects and Other Assets | 1. Subjects and Method of Analysis | 2. The Limit of “Information” that Should Be Provided – A General Rule | 3. Analysis of the Five Types of Conflict | a) Conflict over the current state of the property | b) Conflict over administrative regulations | c) Conflict over future environmental changes to the property | d) Conflict over a lower price in the future for property of equal value | e) Conflict over how to properly use the property | IV. Analysis of Real Functions of the Information Duty in Relation to the Ownership and transfer of Rights to Objects and Other Assets | 1. The Reason for No Information Duty Relating to the Existence of Rights to the Property | 2. The Reason for the Liability of Non-professional Sellers | 3. The Reason for the Difference in the Liability of Real Estate Brokers Retained by the Seller | 4. The Reason for the Difference in the Liability of Professional Sellers | 5. The Rationality of the Judgments Regarding the Fourth Type of Conflict | 6. The Scope of the Information Duty | 7. Effects of a Breach of the Information Duty | a) Information duty for the security of self-determination | b) Information duty for the achievement of the contractual purpose | V. Summary The Judgments Analyzed for this Paper