Legal Consequences in Pre-Contracting in the Perspective of Indonesian Contract Law: Comparative Study of Law with Other Countries

Abstract

This article discusses the development of law on the pre-contract side in Indonesia by making legal comparisons with other countries, including court decisions. The basis of the comparison is from the aspect of the principle of good faith and promissory estoppel at the pre-contract level and its legal consequences. Pre-contracts in Indonesia do not yet have legal matters, even though one of the parties has taken legal actions to be realized in the contract. These legal acts have not been recognized because they are not included in the contract area, even though these legal actions can harm the person who commits them. The UK, Australia, and the United States are based on the principle of good faith and promissory estoppel. It is often debated, such as London Property Trust Ltd against High Tress House Ltd, Carter v Boehm, Sheikh Al Nehayan v Kent, Amey Birmingham Highways Ltd v Birmingham City Council, and Bates v Post Office Ltd, but can still claim damages. The law in the Netherlands recognizes that good faith must exist at the pre-contract stage, as in Arrest Hoge Raad, NJ 1983, 723. Still, in Indonesia, in the Supreme Court Decision Number: 3138 K/Pdt/1984, contracts in Indonesia have not been binding on the parties because the bids entered in the pre-contract domain are considered not yet critical to the parties.