Search

Regarding the retention of ownership, Austrian law is strongly influenced by German law, just as in Japanese law. Although Austrian law does not provide for the retention of ownership in civil and insolvency laws, it is permitted by the principle of freedom of contract. This point is similar in Japanese law. However, unlike Japanese law, Austrian law treats objects as co-ownership in some cases. This suggests the necessity of studying the legal structure of Japanese law.

In the trade in products without individuality and sold by quantity, specificity may be lost if a target object is stored together with inventory items after delivery to a buyer. However, if the target object can be identified by uniquely associating it with an individual delivery, then its specificity can be maintained even after storage with other inventory items. Such an arrangement would allow the seller to achieve proportionate control even for items sold only by quantity. This arrangement would also permit the seller to hold collateral, including those products paid for, until the aggregate collateral reaches the total amount sold. However, to justify this conclusion, I think it is necessary to consider whether to use the concept of aggregation. Furthermore, it is necessary to review the concept of "within normal business".

Article 176 of the Civil Code provides that the parties are free to agree on the timing of property changes. Is the agreement on retention of ownership thus an agreement that sets the standard or an agreement that changes the standard? In this paper, I analyze retention of ownership from the understanding of the security interest. The first result is a cancellation condition if the standard is agreed. The second result is the establishment of a lien or pledge if the agreement changes the standard.

Japanese Supreme Court Decision (June 4, 2010) “According to the facts, it is appropriate to construe that the Tripartite Contract was not concluded to confirm that the ownership of the Automobile reserved by the sales company would be transferred to the appellee as a result of subrogation, but it was concluded to make an agreement that the appellee, as security for the Claim for the Money Paid on the Purchaser's Behalf, would acquire the ownership of the Automobile transferred thereto from the sales company and then reserve such ownership. It should therefore be construed that the right that the appellee is entitled to exercise as the right of separate satisfaction is said ownership that has been reserved thereby as security for the Claim for the Money Paid on the Purchaser's Behalf, etc. More specifically, the appellee is to acquire, under the Tripartite Contract, the Claim for the Money Paid on the Purchaser's Behalf, etc. against the appellant, which covers not only the amount equivalent to the Remaining Price but also the amount of commission. Under this contract, the parties have agreed that the ownership of the Automobile shall be reserved by the appellee until the Obligation for the Money Paid on the Purchaser's Behalf, etc. is fully satisfied, and that when the appellant forfeits the benefit of time for the Obligation for the Money Paid on the Purchaser's Behalf, etc. and delivers the Automobile to the appellee, the appellee may appropriate the appraised value of the Automobile to satisfaction of the Obligation for the Money Paid on the Purchaser's Behalf, etc. This clearly indicates that the ownership to be transferred from the sales company and reserved by the appellee is intended as security for the Claim for the Money Paid on the Purchaser's Behalf, etc. If the effect of the appellee making payment on behalf of the appellant is limited to the transfer of the ownership of the Automobile, which has been reserved by the sales company, to the appellee as a result of subrogation, the appellee's claim would be secured only up to the amount equivalent to the Remaining Price, which is contrary to what the parties reasonably intended under the Tripartite Contract.” Japanese Supreme Court Decision (December 7, 2017) “In the case where it was agreed that the ownership of the Automobile reserved by the sales company as security for the Claim for the Remaining Price, the guarantor of the trade price paid the Remaining Price to the selling company as the guarantee obligation. It causes subrogation by performance, and as a result, the ownership of the Automobile that has been reserved by the sales company as security for its claim for the Remaining Price is transferred to the guarantor, by operation of law, along with the claim for the Remaining Price held by the sales company against the buyer. ” The difference between the two judgments arises from the difference in the secured claims that the credit company contracted with the buyer. Then, is it possible to exercise the remaining price claim under the tripartite contract? Under Japanese law, transfer of collateral without secured claim is not allowed. Therefore, the secured claim will be attributed to the credit company. However, the selling company still has claims on automobiles as secured receivables. Therefore, the possibility of exercising secured claims depends on the interpretation of collateral subshares.

The contract between a car sales company, a buyer and a credit sales company can be interpreted as an “agreement to use an asset as common collateral for multiple collateralized claims with different creditors”. In this case, the problem is that the creditor and the collateral holder are different. The same problem arises even if the contract is interpreted in line with the law of substitution. However, it can be understood consistently as protection of the effect of subrogation and as a special contract based on Article 504 of the Civil Code.

Many people understand title retention clause as the division of ownership but don't consider relations with preferential rights (civil code art.303, 321). Preferential right is a right in personam having priority, not a right in rem. When a buyer does not pay the price in full, the seller can use a preferential right to the whole sold goods. When they agree title retention clause, the seller has the payment claim that is not paid in full and beforehand the buyer can use and transfer an sold goods like an owner. From this point, it's possible to understand that sold goods with title retention clause is "the thing of the debtor" which is necessary for the establishment of the preferential rights. Furthermore, title retention clause is agreement to reinforce a preferential right. Therefore, the preferential rights is acceptable even if title retention clause is agreed.