Voices
in
Japan

quote of the day

It comes down to whether or not it was reasonably possible to hold the ceremony immediately after the state of emergency was lifted. The court's legal judgment will serve as a guideline for people who are faced with difficulties through the cancellations of their wedding ceremonies.

5 Comments

Mansaku Kanada, lawyer for a couple who canceled their wedding because of the coronavirus last year, even after the first state of emergency was lifted. But the wedding venue operator is seeking a payment of 2.1 million yen, while the couple want the return of their 200,000 yen deposit.

© Asahi Shimbun

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

5 Comments
Login to comment

I support the couple. They did the right thing. The operator is behaving irresponsibly and is sending the right message.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The operator wants $$$ for doing nothing.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The operator wants $$ for doing nothing.

That's VERY common here.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The court's legal judgment will serve as a guideline for people who are faced with difficulties through the cancellations of their wedding ceremonies.

The court's legal judgment will serve as a guideline for people

So not some binding, legal precedent. Just a guideline for people, but nothing will happen if they don't follow that guideline.

On the one hand, from what I understand and what I have read, it was the couple who cancelled the wedding and not the wedding venue operator. For that reason, I would assume they forfeit their deposit. After all, even the wedding venue had some costs associated with it.

However, on the other hand, the wedding venue operator did not deliver the service because it was cancelled (and the fact that it was cancelled is already evident because it did not take place and the wedding venue operator has a deposit that this couple wants back). If the service was cancelled, there was no use of the service, and if there was no use of the service, then it is not possible to just pay for something I did not use.

What I haven't understood in three decades here and can't get over is the fact that a lot of the services here are "free" on the surface, but there are all sorts of hidden fees lurking inside and no one really knows about them or is directly aware of them. Paying a fee for something I'm cancelling, equal to a normal e.g. three months usage, is something the consumer protection authority would immediately jump on and at best there would be an out of court settlement by the service provider. But here? 10 years ago we wanted to cancel our internet from Softbank, which we had for some 8 years. Softbank wanted a cancellation fee of half a year's use of the service. That is, to pay half a year for a service that I am already cancelling. Fortunately, there was no mention in the contract or the amount of a possible cancellation fee, so we argued this and after some tug-of-war we simply cancelled the contract.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Was there a clause in the contract that said even if you cancel you must pay? It not, and they cancelled, they should not have to pay. As for the deposit... well... that is something up for argument.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites