Page:Civil code of Japan compared with French (1902-06-01).pdf/8

410 was created, laws of various countries differ. The French law provides (Article 1247), that where the obligation consists in the delivery of specified goods the performance is to be made at the place where the goods were at the time the obligation was created, and in all other cases, at the place of the domicile of the debtor. Where the delivery of a specific thing is the object of an obligation, the Japanese law on the subject follows the French law, but in all other cases the domicile of the creditor is declared to be the place of performance (Article 484). Such was the law in Japan before the Code was adopted, and we saw no necessity for altering it. The provisions of the German law on the subject are the same as the French (German Code, Articles 269, 270). There is room for doubt whether a person making performance may require as a right, a receipt or the surrender of documents evidencing the obligation where there are such documents. There is no provision on the subject in the French Code. The Japanese (Articles 486, 487) and German (Articles 368, 371) Codes contain provisions expressly giving the person making performance of an obligation the right to require a receipt or the surrender of the documents as the case may be.

In certain cases a debtor may be released from his liability by depositing the object of the obligation. The French Code confines it to the case where the creditor refuses to accept performance (Article 1257). The Japanese Code adds two more cases: first, where the creditor is unable to accept performance, and second, where the person performing, without fault on his part, can not ascertain who is the creditor. It is possible that the creditor may not be able to receive performance by reason of illness or absence when the obligation becomes due, or his rights may be attached by his creditors and thus he would be unable to receive performance. It is also possible that several creditors may contend for the performance of the same obligation, or the right might be assigned, and thus the debtor would be unable to determine to what person the obligation should be performed. In these cases it is just that the debtor should be allowed to exempt himself from further liability by depositing the thing forming the subject of the obligation. If, however, the thing forming the subject of performance is not suitable for deposit, or if it is perishable or liable to injury, or if the keeping would be unreasonably expensive, it is provided that the person performing may, with the permission of the court,’ sell it at auction and deposit the proceeds (Article 497).