News Alert for Dealers of Japanese Used Cars

Yesterday, I alerted everyone how Tradecarview is trying to act in a monopolistic way by extorting money unfairly for their new services. In their Terms of use (not legally sound though), they mention that they can make alterations and introduce new services and charge their members (here, it is the Dealers) for that. But is this legal? 

Check what the Fair Trade Commission of Japan has mentioned with regard to this. Text is given below. This is a document made in clear English and points to many facts about the illegality of this. Dealers should report this immediately to the authorities. I have provided the link of their contact detail. If you have trouble figuring it out, let me know through your comments and I will try to help as much as possible. 

Check below as to where the illegality comes in. Maybe, the Tradecarview staff cannot understand this because this information in English. 

Another important point is that they inform the members of this change on 30th July, 2010 which happens to be a Friday and they implement this new money rip-off scheme on 1st August,2010 (Sunday). Very smart right! 

Mind you, they introduced a similar scheme nearly 2 years ago, and when members plainly refused to pay, they had to do away it. They could not validate their claim. 

Do you believe that all the Inquiries that come through that is genuine? I leave it to you to decide that. 

Please check the Public Notice below. 

Designation of Unfair Trade Practices 

(Fair Trade Commission Public Notice No. 15 of June 18, 1982) 

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 2, paragraph (9), item (vi) of Act on Prohibition of  

Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade (Act No. 54 of 1947), Unfair 

Trade Practices (Fair Trade Commission Public Notice No. 11 of 1953) shall be partly revised as follows and shall come into force as from January 4th, 2010.  

(Concerted Refusal to Trade) 

(1) Without justifiable grounds, any act listed in any of the following items concertedly 

with another entrepreneur who is in a competitive relationship with oneself 

(hereinafter referred to as a “‘competitor”): 

(i) Refusing to receive supplies of goods or services from a certain entrepreneur or 

restricting the quantity or substance of goods or services supplied by a certain 

entrepreneur; or 

(ii) Causing another entrepreneur to refuse to receive supplies of goods or services from 

a certain entrepreneur, or to restrict the quantity or substance of goods or services 

supplied by a certain entrepreneur 

(Other Refusal to Trade) 

(2) Unjustly refusing to trade, or restricting the quantity or substance of goods or 

services pertaining to trade with a certain entrepreneur, or causing another 

entrepreneur to undertake any act that falls under one of these categories. 

(Discriminatory Consideration) 

(3) In addition to any act falling under the provisions of Article 2, paragraph (9), item 

( 

No. 54 of 1947. hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), unjustly supplying or accepting 

goods or services for a consideration which discriminates between regions or between 

parties. 

(Discriminatory Treatment on Trade Terms, etc.) 

(4) Unjustly affording favorable or unfavorable treatment to a certain entrepreneur 

in regard to the terms or execution of a trade. 

(Discriminatory Treatment, etc. in a Trade association) 

(5) Unjustly excluding a specific entrepreneur from a trade association or from a 

concerted activity, or unjustly discriminating against a specific entrepreneur in a 

2 

trade association or a concerted activity, thereby causing difficulties in the 

business activities of the said entrepreneur. 

(Unjust Low Price Sales) 

(6) In addition to any act falling under the provisions of Article 2, paragraph (9), item 

( 

tending to cause difficulties to the business activities of other entrepreneurs. 

(Unjust High Price Purchasing) 

(7) Unjustly purchasing goods or services for a high consideration, thereby tending 

to cause difficulties to the business activities of other entrepreneurs. 

(Deceptive Customer Inducement) 

(8) Unjustly inducing customers of a competitor to trade with oneself by causing 

them to misunderstand that the substance of goods or services supplied by oneself, 

or its trade terms, or other matters relevant to such trade are much better or 

much more favorable than the actual ones or than those pertaining to the 

competitor. 

(Customer Inducement by Unjust Benefits) 

(9) Inducing customers of a competitor to trade with oneself by offering unjust 

benefits in light of normal business practices. 

(Tie-in Sales, etc.)  

(10) Unjustly causing another party to purchase goods or services from oneself or 

from an entrepreneur designated by oneself by tying it to the supply of other goods 

or services, or otherwise coercing the said party to trade with oneself or with an 

entrepreneur designated by oneself. 

(Trading on Exclusive Terms) 

(11) Unjustly trading with another party on condition that the said party shall not 

trade with a competitor, thereby tending to reduce trading opportunities for the 

said competitor. 

(Trading on Restrictive Terms) 

(12) In addition to any act falling under the provisions of Article 2, paragraph (9), item 

( 

which unjustly restrict any trade between the said party and its other transacting party 

3 

or other business activities of the said party. 

(Unjust Interference with appointment of officer in one 

(13) Causing a corporation which is one’s transacting party to follow one’s instruction in 

advance, or to get one’s approval, regarding the appointment of officers of the said 

corporation (meaning those as defined by Article 2, paragraph (3) of the Act (The same 

shall apply hereinafter)) , unjustly in light of the normal business practices by making 

use of one’s dominant bargaining position over the party. 

(Interference with a Competitor’s Transactions) 

(14) Unjustly interfering with a transaction between another entrepreneur who is in a 

domestic competitive relationship with oneself or with the corporation of which 

one is a stockholder or an officer, and its transacting party, by preventing the effecting 

of a contract, or by inducing the breach of a contract, or by any other means whatsoever. 

(Interference with Internal Operation of a competing company) 

(15) Unjustly inducing, abetting, or coercing a stockholder or an officer of a corporation 

which is in a domestic competitive relationship with oneself or with a corporation of 

which one is a stockholder or an officer, to take an act disadvantageous to such 

corporation by the exercise of voting rights, transfer of stock, divulgence of secrets, or 

any other means whatsoever. 

ⅱ) of Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade (Actⅲ) of the Act, unjustly supplying goods or services for a low consideration, therebyⅳ) of the Act and the preceding paragraph, trading with another party on conditions’s transacting party). 

Dealers please note that i have copied the notice and highlighted some points for easy understanding. Many of us are not aware that the Japanese legal system is very strict on such matters. A legal officer would be able to give proper advice.  

Please note how relevant the points 9 and 10 of the notice are relevant to the Paytrade that Tradecarview is coercing your customers to use.   Some buyers have mentioned to heir dealers how they were being coerced by Tradecarview to use the Paytrade. This needs verification though, but does not rule out the possibilty, right?