However, in the case of ongoing contracts such as franchise agreements, the expectation of the party (mainly the franchisee in franchise agreements) to continue to participate in the contract should be protected. The general approach is to limit, to some extent, the termination of contracts. B, for example by requiring a legitimate reason to terminate current agreements. With regard to a “sales contract” (for which the objective is to sell and buy a product) or an “employment contract”. For example, the construction of a building, the development of a system, etc., a supplier may sign its obligations without consent, unless the contract does not have them otherwise. However, responsibility for delivery delays, quality defects, etc., remains, regardless of delivery, to the supplier of the customer who orders the product or work. In this context, supply markets in manufacturing are generally classified as “employment contracts.” While the analysis of the Tokyo Supreme Court`s decision on the cosmetics special agent export agreement described above could reasonably be consistent with the principle of contractual freedom, since some participations in other cases, based on just principles, minimize the risk of litigation when terminating agreements, it would be desirable to consider the legitimate grounds for cancelling an ongoing contract. Yes, the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the parties can, by mutual agreement, determine the country in which they can take legal action, provided that such an agreement is proven by a paper document. The code also provides that when the contract is executed electronically (e-mail, etc.), the agreement is deemed to be executed by a paper document.
Under the Civil Code, the other party can terminate the contract if one party does not meet its contractual obligations. In addition, if the contract contains a termination clause, a party may terminate an agreement under that clause, even if there is no breach of contract. Liquidd Damages clauses are applicable and are widely used in Japan. Under the Civil Code, if the liquidation of damages is specified in a contract, the courts do not have the authority to change the amount specified in such an agreement, provided that the extent of the damage and the amount specified in the clause are reasonable in relation to the actual damages that could result from an infringement. As a result, the parties often contain a contractual clause allowing both parties to terminate the other party`s insolvency contract. However, it is very likely that such a clause will be considered unenforceable. In the event of a withdrawal of an agreement under the right of termination under the contract, while it is customary to set a termination period before the termination effect, it may be considered that the contract can be terminated immediately if notice is not indicated. On the other hand, in order to invoke the legal right to terminate a contract in response to the non-performance obligations of the other party, it is necessary to formally ask the troubled party to fulfil its obligations within a reasonable time and, if the party in difficulty continues to breach the contract during that period, the contract may be terminated.