[Unfair Competition Prevention Act / Contracts] Osaka District Court, Reiwa 5 (Wa) 886 <Judge Takemiya>
Updated: Oct 9
Article information
Article type: Case note
Categories: Unfair competition law
Issues: Contract interpretation
Published on website: 2026-10-08
Display and classification checked: 2026-10-08
[Unfair Competition Prevention Act / Contracts] Osaka District Court, Reiwa 5 (Wa) 886 <Judge Takemiya>
* The contractual warranty was held to cover only the goods sold, not finished products incorporating those goods.
(Summary of the judgment, translated)
Article 6(1) of the basic agreement for purchasing components provides that the defendant warrants legal compliance, quality, and other matters concerning the “Products” it sells to the plaintiff (LED boards and other components of a chlorine-dioxide-generating unit).
Article 6(2) provides that the plaintiff warrants representations concerning products it makes incorporating that unit, excluding the Products themselves.
Article 19 expressly provides that the plaintiff is responsible for promoting the finished products and for complying with the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations and other laws.
Given this wording and structure, the defendant's warranty is confined to the Products themselves and does not extend to representations on the retail packaging and elsewhere for the finished products sold by the plaintiff (the Cleverin products at issue).
Even if that packaging carried representations misleading consumers about quality in violation of that Act, the plaintiff bears contractual responsibility; the defendant has no warranty obligation.
The plaintiff argued that the defendant was responsible for the representations because it gave detailed instructions and supplied the core components. However, it was not established that the defendant took the lead in determining the design in a relationship that bound the plaintiff to follow it. Although the defendant made suggestions and supplied materials, the plaintiff prepared the original designs and made the final decisions. The plaintiff was therefore responsible for the representations.
The plaintiff's proposed interpretation that “the defendant warrants the portions of the representations concerning the Products” also cannot be adopted. Even if the finished-product packaging includes an explanation of the Products, that does not make it a representation for the Products themselves, nor can the defendant be said to have been responsible for making it.
Original article (2025-10-19):
Originally posted on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7513417362101084161/
Related articles
Consultation guide by purpose: https://www.takaishihideki.com/en/single-post/consultation-guide-en
Update history
The update history records only changes actually published, with dates.
2026-10-08: First publication of the LinkedIn original; display, classification, and consultation link set.
2026-10-08: Updated issue tags and classification.
Comments