Page:Civil code of Japan compared with French (1902-06-01).pdf/14

416 agrees to allow the other party to use and take the profits of a thing, and the other party agrees to pay rent for it. Either a movable or an inmovableimmovable [sic] may be made the subject of hiring and letting. Whether the right thus created should be regarded as a right or a right  has been the subject of conflicting opinions among jurists. The Japanese Code treats it as a right, but in respect of immovables, if the contract is registered, it is good against third persons (Article 605). Upon the question whether the hirer can sublet or assign the subject of the contract, the French Code provides that he may do so unless expressly prohibited by the terms of the contract. The rule adopted in the Japanese Code, on the contrary, is that a hirer may not, without the consent of the lessor, assign his right to another person or sublet the thing hired (Article 612). There may be special considerations which induce the lessor to let a thing to one person, but the same considerations would not apply to other and perhaps unknown parties. It would be unjust to impose on the person letting, such a party without his consent.

With respect to the hiring of services, a contract can only be entered into for a fixed period or for a determinate work. This is the rule of the French law. Therefore a contract of this kind for life would be illegal. The rule is intended to prevent anything resembling slavery. No such prohibition appears in the Japanese Code, but the same object is attained by the provision that if the duration of the contract of hiring is for more than five years or for the lifetime of one of the parties, or of a third person, either party may at any time after the expiration of five years rescind the contract, but as to apprentices in a commercial or industrial business, such term is ten years (Article 626). During long periods of time, wages are apt to fluctuate and it would be contrary to public policy and economy, that parties to a service contract should continue to be bound by an agreement which is at variance with the times. At the same time the liberty of people in disposing of their services by contract should be recognized. Japanese law gives as much scope to the freedom of contract as is compatible with public welfare.

— Association, or, is defined in the French Code to be a contract by which two or more persons agree to bring certain things together with a view to share the profit. Profit is therefore the object of the contract. This, however, unnecessarily limits the usefulness of the contract. There are cases when parties may desire to enter into this kind of contract with objects other than gain. Accordingly, in the Japanese as well as the German