[tokyojoe]

This article is a bit off base. While there are few people allowed to practice law in court there are many people with legal training. This could be through an undergrad law degree or through legal specialties such as patent attorneys or legal scriveners (`shiho shoshi`). Many of these people do work that would be handled by a lawyer in the west but they are not officially counted as lawyers per se. The anecdote about the President doing business on his word and a few pages of contract is becoming more rare. Many of the large Japanese multinationals use contracts as complex as those in the west. I think it`s only in industries with little outside exposure that you see business being done without a contract. That approach only works with people of the same culture that you know really well.

[kamome]

Tokyojoe is correct on all accounts. Especially in the case of mergers between an offshore company and a Japanese company, it is normal to draw up large detailed contracts to effect the merger/acquisition. Also, the Japanese sometimes use detailed contracts amongst themselves, as in the case of insurance and investment contracts.

An interesting question is whether the catch-all "good faith" provision in Japanese contracts exposes the party to more or less risk than the rigid schedules and terms in a Western contract. Some Japanese argue that leaving it up to good faith reduces risk, because both signatories to the contract will be in breach if they argue too much on a point. But of course, if you leave to much to "good faith", there's not much you can do if each party has a different definition of a good faith course of dealing.

A good book to read on this topic is "Law and Investment in Japan" by Yukio Yanagida, et.al., published by the Harvard University Press.

[tokyojoe]

There is a Japanese movie company, which I won`t name, that does million dollar projects with no contract at all. Now that is scary.

Part of the `good faith` clauses in Japanese contract has to do with the concept that if there is a breach or disagreement that both parties will sit down and discuss it in good faith rather than the typical knee-jerk lawsuit you see so often in the US. That is an attitude I wish were more prevalent in the West. Still, such a clause doesn`t supersede the need for a proper contract.

[kamome]

Ironically, good faith clauses exist in the boilerplate language of Western contracts as well, but that doesn't prevent the inclusion of minutiae to anticipate unwanted contingencies. I also read that there is no Statute of Frauds in Japan, but there is a difference of opinion among scholars as to whether that has anything to do with the Japanese reluctance to reduce their agreements to writing.

One thing that irks me in Japan is the seeming lack of acceptable employment contracts. I walked into my job having signed a 2 1/2 page "contract" that was little more than a promise to abide by "the relevant standards applicable to a person of my rank and education", which really was a lot of BS to cover up the fact that no real system existed. It was basically a salary, a title, a financial incentive to stay in the company, and a vague description of certain other benefits. I would have bargained for more, but at the time I had no leverage to do so.

What this means is that the company can f*** with you in many ways as long as they don't reduce your salary or strip you of your title.

[tokyojoe]

What about work rules? Your employer should have rules approved by the local labor board. Japanese employees do have strong rights. It`s much more difficult to fire someone in Japan than the US.

[kamome]

That's right, Japanese labor laws are surprisingly generous. They are the only things that have protected me from a royal raping by my employer.

[tokyojoe]

Do you work at an English school?