If performance is due on a claim arising between merchants from an action that constitutes a commercial transaction for both parties, the obligee may retain an object or negotiable instrument of value belonging to the obligor that the obligee has gained possession of in the commercial transaction with the obligor, until the claim is satisfied; provided, however, that this does not apply if the parties have manifested a different intention.
商人間においてその双方のために商行為となる行為によって生じた債権が弁済期にあるときは、債権者は、その債権の弁済を受けるまで、その債務者との間における商行為によって自己の占有に属した債務者の所有する物又は有価証券を留置することができる。ただし、当事者の別段の意思表示があるときは、この限りでない。
merchant
「商人」
A person who, in their own name, carries on commercial transactions (商行為) as a business.
Defined inArticle 4, paragraph (1)· applies throughout the law
manifestation of intention
意思表示
A person's expression of an intention to which the law gives a legal effect, such as an offer to conclude a contract, which shows its terms and forms the contract once the other party accepts it (Civil Code, Article 522, paragraph (1)), the acceptance itself (Article 527), or the notice to the other party by which a party rescinds (取消し) an act or cancels (解除) a contract (Articles 123 and 540, paragraph (1)). One made to another person takes effect when notice of it reaches that person, or when it would normally have reached them if they blocked it without good reason (Article 97, paragraphs (1) and (2)), and does not lose its effect because the person who made it dies, loses mental capacity (意思能力) or comes under legal limits on what they can do alone after sending the notice (Article 97, paragraph (3)); where the person making it cannot find out who the other party is or where they are, it can be made by public notice (Article 98, paragraph (1)). It is not void just because the person making it knew it was not their true intention, unless the other party knew or could have known that (Article 93, paragraph (1)); a false one made in collusion with the other party is void (Article 94, paragraph (1)); and neither voidness can be asserted against a third party who did not know of it (善意) (Articles 93, paragraph (2), and 94, paragraph (2)). One based on a mistake that is material in light of the purpose of the juridical act (法律行為) and accepted views in dealings may be rescinded — one based on a mistaken view of the circumstances behind the act only if it had been shown that the act was based on them, and as a rule not where the mistake came from the gross negligence of the person who made it (Article 95, paragraphs (1) to (3)) — and so may one made under fraud or duress, though one induced by a third party's fraud only if the other party knew of the fraud or could have known of it (Article 96, paragraphs (1) and (2)); a rescission for mistake or fraud cannot be relied on against a third party who did not know and was not careless in not knowing (Article 95, paragraph (4), and Article 96, paragraph (3)). One that an agent makes within the agent's authority, showing that it is made for the principal, takes effect directly for the principal (Article 99, paragraph (1)). The Consumer Contract Act lets a consumer rescind an offer or acceptance of a consumer contract made because the business, when soliciting it, told them something untrue about an important matter and they believed it, among other grounds (Consumer Contract Act, Article 4, paragraph (1), item (i)), and the Act on Specified Commercial Transactions does the same where, in a door-to-door sale, the seller or service provider told them something untrue about such matters as the goods or the price (Article 6, paragraph (1), and Article 9-3, paragraph (1), item (i)).
Written by AI using Civil Code, Arts. 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 123, 522, 527, 540, Consumer Contract Act, Art. 4 and Act on Specified Commercial Transactions, Arts. 6, 9-3 as a reference.