Construction law and practice in Japan

Kashiwagi, K; Rubin, R A and Harris, M R (1988) Construction law and practice in Japan. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 114(1), pp. 104-113. ISSN 0733-9364

Abstract

Construction law and practice in the United States and Japan is remarkably similar. One principal difference, rooted in Japanese societal mores, is that self-settlement of disputes is overwhelmingly preferred to third-party resolution through litigation. Japan has a three-tiered court system that includes trial courts, appellate courts, and a supreme court. There are no juries in Japan. The sources of Japanese law are principally the Japanese Constitution and statutes. To a lesser extent custom, reason, and precedent are also used. Trust and establishment of a long-term business relationship underlie most contract relationships. By law, construction contracts are required to be fair and just, based on a theory of basic equity. Disclaimers and exculpatory clauses are disfavored. Differing site condition clauses are common, but are interpreted as requiring a sharing of risk between owner and contractor rather than, as in the United States, requiring a shifting of all the risk from contractor to owner. Japanese practice regarding termination, damages, liquidated damages, and formal dispute resolution are similar to U.S. practice.

Item Type: Article
Index terms: statute, resolution, liquidated damages, construction law, damages, construction contract, owner, United States, Japan, litigation, business relationship, disclaimer, dispute
Subjects: sociology, contractual remedy, dispute resolution, contract type, legal systems, conflict resolution, contractual condition, construction law, Geography, strategic management
Topics: Contract Administration, Geographical Context, Business Strategy, Procurement, Legal Issues, Stakeholder Management
Descriptive scope: 2 PC

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here