A manifestation of intention based on fraud or duress may be revoked.
詐欺又は強迫による意思表示は、取り消すことができる。
If a third party commits a fraud inducing a first party to make a manifestation of intention to a second party, that manifestation of intention may be revoked only if the second party knew or could have known that fact.
相手方に対する意思表示について第三者が詐欺を行った場合においては、相手方がその事実を知り、又は知ることができたときに限り、その意思表示を取り消すことができる。
The revocation of a manifestation of intention induced by fraud under the provisions of the preceding two paragraphs may not be duly asserted against a third party in good faith acting without negligence.
前二項の規定による詐欺による意思表示の取消しは、善意でかつ過失がない第三者に対抗することができない。
Read this with the articles around it
(Fraud or Duress)
A manifestation of intention based on fraud or duress may be revoked.
詐欺又は強迫による意思表示は、取り消すことができる。
Open this provision(Fraud or Duress)
If a third party commits a fraud inducing a first party to make a manifestation of intention to a second party, that manifestation of intention may be revoked only if the second party knew or could…
相手方に対する意思表示について第三者が詐欺を行った場合においては、相手方がその事実を知り、又は知ることができたときに限り、その意思表示を取り消すことができる。
Open this provisionassert against
対抗
To be able to rely on a right, or on a fact about it, against someone who is not a party to it. Acquiring, losing or changing a right in rem (物権) in land or a building cannot be asserted against third parties until it is registered (登記) (Civil Code, Article 177), and a registered lease of land or a building can be asserted against a person who acquires a right in rem in it, such as a buyer, and against other third parties (Article 605). The Act on Land and Building Leases lets a tenant do without registering the lease itself: a right to use land for a building (借地権) can be asserted against third parties once the tenant owns a registered building on the land (Article 10, paragraph (1)), and a building lease takes effect against anyone who later acquires a right in rem in the building, such as a new owner, once the building has been handed over (Article 31). Some rules protect only a third party who did not know: a rescission for fraud cannot be asserted against a third party who did not know of the fraud and was not careless in not knowing (善意でかつ過失がない) (Civil Code, Article 96, paragraph (3)).
Written by AI using Civil Code, Arts. 96, 177, 605 and Act on Land and Building Leases, Arts. 10, 31 as a reference.
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.
rescission
取消し
Undoing a legal act, such as an offer or acceptance of a contract (意思表示, a manifestation of intention), that the law says may be rescinded: for example one made through an important mistake, though a mistake about the circumstances behind the act only if it had been made clear that they were its basis, and as a rule not where the person was grossly careless (Civil Code, Article 95), or one made under fraud or duress, though fraud by a third party only if the other party knew of it or could have known (Article 96), or one a minor made without the consent of their legal representative (Article 5, paragraph (2)). Once rescinded, the act is treated as void from the start (Article 121). Only the person who made it, their representative or successor, or someone whose consent it needed may rescind it (Article 120). The right is lost if not used within five years from when the act could be confirmed — once the mistake, fraud or other cause has ended and the person knows they can rescind (Article 124) — or twenty years from the act (Article 126). It is lost sooner if the person confirms the act, and once it could be confirmed, performing it or demanding performance without reserving objections counts as confirming it (Articles 122 and 125). The Consumer Contract Act adds grounds of its own, such as a business telling the consumer something untrue about an important matter when soliciting the contract, where the consumer believed it and made the contract because of it (Article 4, paragraph (1), item (i)), and gives most of them a shorter time: one year from when the act could be confirmed, and five years from the contract (Article 7, paragraph (1)).
Written by AI using Civil Code, Arts. 5, 95, 96, 120, 121, 122, 124, 125, 126 and Consumer Contract Act, Arts. 4, 7 as a reference.