Two More Lawsuits Filed

For once I gotta agree with Nova on this one. The students sign up and have an extension to use their current points, but it is a service provided by the company.

Any different opinions out there? Actually for once makes relative sense to me.

Well Written (good english = )

Ok, The law may say one thing, and what is morally right, and how things are termed all have an impact on this one. I would have to imagine the person who wrote write after I wrote that I might have to support NOVA on this one is probably in the right. NOVA's tactics in this regard and what they actually tell the students and make clear to the students is probably where Nova is once again stepping over the line. I guess their trackrecord in this record is nearly flawless in screwing over their clients. Not sure what the letter of the law is.. but if it is clearly writen and explained to a reasonable level that if a company gives an extension of usage (based on the new contract this conceptually is a win win).

If the student decides to cancel and it was explained that the extended lessons have no residual value (other than being able to take the lessons within the new time period agreed upon by the student and duly written and stated by the company then morally there is nothing wrong with it, but is a good deal for both company, and the student who is eager to continue studying. But in the end the law is the law, and unfortunately my Japanese is not quite good enough to go through the very well documented Japanese post preceding this one. Mind giving a summary of the law for us? - _ -
(Same person as who wrote the second post)

I noticed this problem from before. I guess NOVA side people feel the judgement by the supreme court is strange. In naturally feeling, If students decide to cancel lessons, the responsibility is mainly upon the students. But the pupose of “Regulations for Enforcement of the Act on Specified Commercial Transactions”(http://www.kl.i.is.nagoya-u.ac.jp/told/s51a05701en.1.0.txt) try to defend customers.

Though I am a doctor and my major is not law, I try to explain the contents of the law and the points of this problem correctly.

Article 41 specifies the term "Specified Continuous Service Offers" as “offer of Specified Continuous Services, where a Service Provider concludes a contract under which it promises to offer Specified Continuous Services for a period exceeding the periods specified by a Cabinet Order for the respective Specified Continuous Services, and the counterparty promises to pay an amount of money that exceeds the amount specified by a Cabinet Order in response “. Language school lessons are included in this category, and any language school’s rule have to obey this law. Recently NOVA was punished by Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry for violating this law, and Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry ordered NOVA to stop new lesson contract with students longer than 70 hours from June 3rd ,2007 to December 13th, 2007(source: http://www.meti.go.jp/press/20070613004/20070613004.html). Because all judgements abou NOVA problems are always decided by this law, the knowledge of this law is very important.

Article 49 is about the canceling contract by customers. The follow cases are about language school.
If the students cancel contract before the beginning of lessons, the limitation of money which the student have to pay is 15,000 yen. If the student payed more, the rest will be back.

If the students cancel contract after the beginning of lessons, the limitation of money which the student have to pay is A + B;

A: The lesson fee for the received lesson.
B: If (lesson fee for not received lesson) * 20% > 50,000 yen, B=50,000.
If (lesson fee for not received lesson) * 20% < 50,000 yen, B = (lesson fee for not received lesson) * 20%.

For example, if lesson fee per 1 lesson is 1,000 yen and the student decides to cancel lessons after he received 20 lessons, calculation is below.

A : 1000 * 20 lessons = 20,000
B : 1,000 * 80 lessons * 20% = 16,000 yen < 50,000 yen

A+B = 20,000 + 16,000 = 36,000yen

If the student payed 100,000 yen already, the language school have to return 64,000 yen to student.

If the lesson fee doesn’t change, the story is quite simple. BUT in NOVA case, the lesson fee changes as bellow.

if contract lesson point > 600, 1 point costs 1,200 yen
if contract lesson point > 500, 1 point costs 1,350 yen
if contract lesson point > 400, 1 point costs 1,550 yen
if contract lesson point > 300, 1 point costs 1,750 yen
if contract lesson point > 250, 1 point costs 1,850 yen
if contract lesson point > 200, 1 point costs 1,950 yen
if contract lesson point > 150, 1 point costs 2,050 yen
if contract lesson point > 110, 1 point costs 2,100 yen
if contract lesson point > 80, 1 point costs 2,300 yen

At the judgement of the supreme court on April 3rd, the student bought 600 point. He payed 720000 yen. After he received 386 lessons, he canceled. When NOVA calculate the back money, NOVA decided the lesson fee is 1750 yen per lesson, and the back money decreased. NOVA said that the lesson fee is decided when contract is decided.

District court judged that “NOVA said that the lesson fee is decided when contract is decided. “ is not right. If some student feel the lessons are not effective, canceling can happen, and the purpose of the canceling is not bad purpose, students’ right in article 49 is alive, and if the student bought many lessons, the cost should be calculated in the original way (1200 yen).

High court made judgement almost in the same way and NOVA lost. Hight court added the fact that some other language schools calculate the lesson in the cheaper way and some NOVA students also payed by cheaper way in the past.

The supreme court mentioned that NOVA doesn’t decide different lesson fee for each lesson, 1200 yen is natural fee. The supreme court also mentioned that in NOVA style, the back money is always decreased in each student who wants to cancel. This trial decrease customers’ right to cancel.

NOVA lost in this way. Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry changed the law itself clearly like this; “If the students cancel, the lesson fee should be the same price when the student buy originally. Even though the school decide the fee calculation in the school rule, it is not effective”. (From April 13th, 2007)

In this way, this problem was solved. If NOVA continues to calculate the back fee in NOVA style, the lawsuit will continue, and NOVA will lost again and again.

This is the explanation to this thread.

I used to study NOVA 3 years ago in Fukushima.
Though I noticed NOVA’s style broke law, I like NOVA teachers. They are kind and good teachers.
I’m sorry for the news for unpaid salary to English teachers.

Good luck to NOVA teachers.