Regarding the June 12 Lifelines column under "Renewal fees revisited": A correspondent writes that he has refused to pay a rental contract renewal fee even though the contract obliges him to do so, and that he still lives in his apartment. The correspondent cites as justification a court decision supporting a renter's refusal to pay a renewal fee.
However, if we read the article referenced at the link provided, it says that the court sided with the renter because the original rental contract was flawed.
Let's be frank: The correspondent's attitude basically is, we gaijin (foreigners) don't really have to respect the contracts we make with the natives here in Japan (or perhaps he thinks he lives in Disneyland). What would be the correspondent's attitude if his employer decided to selectively implement the payment provisions of his employment contract?
This also provides a clue as to why we gaijin have trouble renting apartments.
With your current subscription plan you can comment on stories. However, before writing your first comment, please create a display name in the Profile section of your subscriber account page.