Defining the scope of buyer representation for a ¥107.1m Tokyo mixed-use building

[EarlyGlass]

I am comparing buyer-representation offers for a mixed-use building in Tokyo priced around ¥107,100,000, and the same label seems to cover wildly different services. Some firms negotiate and coordinate documents through closing; others effectively make an introduction and step away.

What should be written into the scope: response times, fee calculation, local building and tenancy knowledge, document handling, negotiation, and one named person accountable from offer to closing? I care more about clean handoffs and a usable document trail than another dashboard. Concrete Japan-specific expectations—or warning signs in a quotation—would help.

 

[KianLee]

Ask each firm to map its fee against actual stages: initial property assessment, offer preparation, negotiation, document explanation, finance coordination if relevant, pre-closing issues and closing attendance. “Coordination” is too vague unless it says who contacts whom and by when.

For mixed use, I would also ask how they investigate the residential and commercial portions separately, including occupancy, lease information, permitted use and building records. Get exclusions and response deadlines in writing, plus a fallback contact when the named representative is unavailable.

 

[kian.bloom]

I would push back on making response speed the main test. A fast reply is not the same as a careful answer, especially where Japanese documents need explanation or an issue must be checked locally.

The bigger missing fact is whether the building is vacant, owner-occupied or tenanted. That changes what evidence you need before offering. Ask for a sample workflow and redacted deliverables, not testimonials: what written summary is produced, how unresolved points are logged, and exactly where responsibility ends if the deal stalls before closing.