DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/mmh.55.1.2026.82-117

WHEN LANGUAGE BECOMES LAW: INDONESIAN JUDGES AND THE CHALLENGE OF BILINGUAL INTERNATIONAL CONTRACTS

*Moh. Ali  -  Faculty of Law, Universitas Jember, Indonesia
Annisa Zerlina Cindy Gayatri  -  Faculty of Law, Universitas Jember, Indonesia
Open Access Copyright (c) 2026 Masalah-Masalah Hukum under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0.

Citation Format:
Abstract

The regulation of contractual language has become a significant legal issue in Indonesia following the enactment of Article 31(1) of Law No. 24 of 2009, which requires Bahasa Indonesia, or the Indonesian language, to be used in agreements involving Indonesian parties. Although this provision was intended to affirm the legal status of the national language, its practical application has generated uncertainty, particularly due to inconsistent judicial interpretations concerning the validity of contracts drafted in foreign languages. This study examines the tension between linguistic formalism and the principle of freedom of contract as reflected in Articles 1320 and 1338 of the Indonesian Civil Code. Using a doctrinal legal research method supported by statutory, conceptual, case-based, and comparative approaches, this research analyses divergent judicial paradigms in several Indonesian court decisions. The Supreme Court in Decision No. 1572 K/Pdt/2015 and Decision No. 3395 K/Pdt/2019 adopted a strict formalistic approach by declaring foreign-language contracts null and void. Conversely, Decision No. 3415 K/Pdt/2021 and Amlapura District Court Decision No. 254/Pdt.G/2019/PN.Amp placed greater emphasis on substantive justice by recognising contractual validity based on consent, legal capacity, a specific subject matter, and a lawful cause. This article argues that Indonesian courts have inconsistently transformed an administrative language obligation into a substantive requirement for contractual validity, thereby weakening legal certainty and commercial predictability. Unlike previous studies that primarily addressed the legality of foreign-language contracts after the enactment of Law No. 24 of 2009, this research develops a broader analytical framework by examining judicial inconsistency through the theory of legal certainty, Economic Analysis of Law, and comparative contract law. It also positions contractual language regulation not merely as a technical drafting issue, but as a structural problem affecting investment predictability and transnational commercial stability. The comparative analysis of the Netherlands, Malaysia, and Singapore shows that these jurisdictions prioritise contractual intention and commercial practicality over linguistic rigidity. Accordingly, this study concludes that Indonesian contract law requires doctrinal reconstruction to reposition language as an evidentiary and administrative instrument rather than as a determinant of contractual validity.

Fulltext View|Download Email colleagues
Keywords: Contractual Language; Freedom of Contract; Legal Certainty; Foreign-Language Contracts; Indonesian Contract Law

Article Metrics:

Article Info
Section: Articles
Language : EN
Most cited articles
PERAN SERTA MASYARAKAT DAN KEWENANGAN PEMERINTAH DALAM KONSERVASI MANGROVE SEBAGAI UPAYA MENCEGAH ROB DAN BANJIR SERTA SEBAGAI TEMPAT WISATA MIGRASI PENDUDUK DAN IMPLIKASINYA TERHADAP HANKAM DI WILAYAH PERBATASAN KALBAR-SERAWAK, MALAYSIA INDEKS Eksistensi Prinsip Responsibility to Protect Dalam Hukum Internasional Kebijakan Mediasi Penal Pada Kasus Pencurian di Kepolisian Surakarta More cited articles
  1. Achmad, B., Turisno, B. E., & Suradi. (2016). Keabsahan Kontrak Berbahasa Asing dan Kepastian terhadap Akibat Hukum Berdasarkan Asas Kebebasan Berkontrak, Menurut Undang-undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2009 dan Surat Kementerian Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia Nomor: M. hh. Um. 01.01-35 (Studi Putusan Pengadilan Neg. Diponegoro Law Journal, 5(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.14710/dlj.2016.10791
  2. Adiyanto, T. (2019). Dealing with Unexpected Circumstances: Judicial Modification of Contract under Indonesian and Dutch Law. Hasanuddin Law Review, 5(1), 102–119. https://doi.org/10.20956/halrev.v5i1.1508
  3. Alexy, R. (2004). The Nature of Legal Philosophy. Ratio Juris, 17(2), 156–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9337.2004.00261.x
  4. Alexy, R. (2015). Legal Certainty and Correctness. Ratio Juris, 28(4), 441–451. https://doi.org/10.1111/raju.12096
  5. Ali, M., & Hernoko, A. Y. (2020). Characteristics of Party Autonomy in a Transnational Electronic Consumer Contract. Yuridika, 35(1), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.20473/ydk.v35i1.15105
  6. Alrashid, H. M. M. (2025). Appraising Party Autonomy in Conflict-of-Laws Rules in International Consumer and Employment Contracts: A Critical Analysis of the Kuwaiti Legal Framework. Journal of Private International Law, 21(1), 153–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441048.2025.2479921
  7. Al-Tarawneh, A., & Al-Badawi, M. (2024). The Impact of Translation on Contractual Clarity and Legal Interpretation in Corporate Settings. In S. Reyad & A. Hannoon (Eds.), Frontiers of Human Centricity in the Artificial Intelligence-Driven Society 5.0 (pp. 1311–1320). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73545-5_122
  8. Amalia, I. Q. A. (2018). Akibat Hukum Pembatalan Perjanjian dalam Putusan Nomor 1572 K/PDT/2015 Berdasarkan Pasal 1320 dan 1338 KUH Perdata. Jurnal Hukum Bisnis Bonum Commune, 1(1), 61–68. https://doi.org/10.30996/jhbbc.v0i0.1757
  9. Anggraeny, I., & Al-Fatih, S. (2020). Kata Sepakat Dalam Perjanjian Dan Relevansinya Sebagai Upaya Pencegahan Wanprestasi. De Lega Lata: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 5(1), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.30596/dll.v5i1.3446
  10. Austin, J. (1995). The Province of Jurisprudence Determined. Cambridge University Press
  11. Barclay, S. (1997). Posner’s Economic Model and the Decision to Appeal. Justice System Journal, 19(1), 77–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/23277556.1997.10871251
  12. Becher, S. I. (2008). Asymmetric Information in Consumer Contracts: The Challenge That Is Yet to Be Met. American Business Law Journal, 45(4), 723–774. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1714.2008.00068.x
  13. Beumers, M. T. (2021). De bescherming van immateriële contractuele belangen in het schadevergoedingsrecht [Universiteit Leiden]. In E.M. Meijers Instituut voor Rechtswetenschappelijk Onderzoek. https://hdl.handle.net/1887/3193531
  14. Bix, B. H. (2011). Radbruch’s Formula and Conceptual Analysis. The American Journal of Jurisprudence, 56(1), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajj/56.1.45
  15. Bocharova, N. (2016). Party Autonomy in Administrative (Judicial) Proceedings. BRICS Law Journal, 3(2), 153–163. https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2016-3-2-153-163
  16. Brutti, N. (2022). The Languages of Contract: A Comparative Law Perspective with a Focus on the CISG. European Business Law Review, 33(2), 243–266. https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2022008
  17. Bryant, M. S. (2004). Prosecuting the Cheerful Murderer: Natural Law and National Socialist Crimes in West German Courts, 1945–1950. Human Rights Review, 5(4), 86–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-004-1030-4
  18. Chrystofer, Priyono, E. A., & Njatrijani, R. (2017). Kajian Hukum Perjanjian Kerjasama CV. Saudagar Kopi dan Pemilik Tempat Usaha Perorangan (Studi Kasus: Mal Ambasador, Jakarta). Diponegoro Law Journal, 6(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.14710/dlj.2017.16994
  19. Cordero-Moss, G. (Ed.). (2024). International Contract Practice and Its Expectations in Terms of the Governing Law. In International Commercial Contracts: Contract Terms, Applicable Law and Arbitration (2nd ed., pp. 8–38). Cambridge University Press. Cambridge Core. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009082822.004
  20. Dickson, M. O. (2018). Party Autonomy and Justice in International Commercial Arbitration. International Journal of Law and Management, 60(1), 114–134. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLMA-12-2016-0184
  21. Fasya, F., & Lubis, Y. A. (2024). Dampak Inkonsistensi Peraturan Penggunaan Bahasa Indonesia dalam Kontrak dengan Pihak Asing di Indonesia (Surat Edaran Mahkamah Agung Nomor 3 Tahun 2023 dan Undang-Undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2009). Jurnal BATAVIA, 1(4), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.64578/batavia.v1i4.60
  22. Foulcher, K. (2000). Sumpah Pemuda: The Making and Meaning of a Symbol of Indonesian Nationhood. Asian Studies Review, 24(3), 377–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357820008713281
  23. Friedman, L. M. (1975). The Legal System: A Social Science Perspective. Russell Sage Foundation
  24. Gilson, R. J., Sabel, C. F., & Scott, R. E. (2014). Text and Context: Contract Interpretation as Contract Design. Cornell Law Review, 100(1), 23–98. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2394311
  25. Goh, Y. (2013). The New Contractual Interpretation in Singapore: From Zurich Insurance to Sembcorp Marine. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, 2013, 301–330. https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/1412
  26. Gray, A. D. (2023). Relational Contract Theory, the Relevance of Actual Performance in Contractual Interpretation and Its Application to Employment Contracts in the United Kingdom and Australia. Common Law World Review, 52(2–3), 61–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/14737795231188384
  27. Hajati, S. (2019). Application of Agreement Principles in Land Procurement for Development Public Interest. Yuridika, 34(2), 365–386. https://doi.org/10.20473/ydk.v34i2.12641
  28. Hart, H. L. A. (1979). The Concept of Law. Oxford University Press
  29. Hartkamp, A. S. (2015). Contract law in the Netherlands. Kluwer Law International BV
  30. Hartono, L. V. Z., & Prananingtyas, P. (2024). Aspek Hukum Perjanjian Dalam Transaksi Jual Beli Secara Online. Notarius, 16(3), 1361–1375. https://doi.org/10.14710/nts.v16i3.41327
  31. Hendrikx, A. M. M., Luycks, J. M., & McKendrick, E. (2021). A NCC Case on Contract Interpretation from an English and Dutch Law Perspective. European Review of Private Law, 29(1), 71–90. https://doi.org/10.54648/erpl2021004
  32. Heredia, A. G. (2018). The Concept of ‘Good Faith’ in the Particular Case of Preferential Arrangements. Global Trade and Customs Journal, 13(6), 239–252. https://doi.org/10.54648/gtcj2018026
  33. Hillman, R. A. (2012). The Richness of Contract Law: An Analysis and Critique of Contemporary Theories of Contract Law (Vol. 28). Springer Science & Business Media
  34. Hillman, R. A., & Rachlinski, J. J. (2002). Standard-Form Contracting in the Electronic Age. New York University Law Review, 77(2), 429–495. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/1062/
  35. Hondius, E. H. (2016). Unfair Contract Terms and the Consumer: ECJ Case Law, Foreign Literature, and Their Impact on Dutch Law. European Review of Private Law, 24(3/4), 457–472. https://doi.org/10.54648/erpl2016029
  36. Horwitz, M. J. (1974). The Historical Foundations of Modern Contract Law. Harvard Law Review, 87(5), 917–956. https://doi.org/10.2307/1340045
  37. Imelda, B., & Sholikah, D. I. (2026). Korelasi Antara Prinsip Itikad Baik (Good Faith) sebagai Fondasi Normatif dengan Penerapan Kewajiban Pacta Sunt Servanda dalam Dinamika Hukum Perjanjian Internasional. Journal of Social and Economics Research, 7(2), 1686–1697. https://doi.org/10.54783/jser.v7i2.1221
  38. Kagramanto, L. B., & Serfiyani, C. Y. (2019). The Principles Of Contract In Donation Based Crowdfunding. Yuridika, 34(1), 81–104. https://doi.org/10.20473/ydk.v34i1.11801
  39. Kasih, N. M., & Pawestri, A. Y. (2025). Implikasi Hukum atas Tidak Dicantumkannya Bahasa Indonesia dalam Kontrak WNI dengan Pihak Asing. Indonesian Journal of Law and Justice, 2(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.47134/ijlj.v2i4.3954
  40. Kelsen, H. (2005). Pure Theory of Law. Lawbook Exchange
  41. Kimel, D. (2003). From Promise to Contract: Towards a Liberal Theory of Contract. Bloomsbury Publishing
  42. Krecké, E. (2003). Economic Analysis and Legal Pragmatism. 19th Annual Conference of the European Association of Law and Economics, Athens, Greece, September 2002., 23(4), 421–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2003.07.005
  43. Kronman, A. T. (1985). Contract Law and the State of Nature. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 1(1), 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jleo.a036890
  44. Kurniawan, I. D., & Ezzerouali, S. (2024). Revisiting the Principle of Legal Certainty: A Contemporary Analysis through the Lens of Legal Positivism. NUSANTARA: Journal Of Law Studies, 3(2), 137–146. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17385496
  45. Lestari, T. W. S., & Santoso, L. (2017). Komparasi Syarat Keabsahan “Sebab yang Halal” dalam Perjanjian Konvensional dan Perjanjian Syariah. YUDISIA: Jurnal Pemikiran Hukum dan Hukum Islam, 8(2), 281–298. https://doi.org/10.21043/yudisia.v8i2.3240
  46. Liew, C. (2012). A Leap of Good Faith in Singapore Contract Law. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, 416–440. (informit.224548492647444). https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.224548492647444
  47. Ling, F. Y. Y., Tan, P. C., Ning, Y., Teo, A., & Gunawansa, A. (2015). Effect of Adoption of Relational Contracting Practices on Relationship Quality in Public Projects in Singapore. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 22(2), 169–189. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-10-2013-0093
  48. Listiyani, E., & Hermono, B. (2024). Analisis Mahkamah Agung Nomor 3415 K/Pdt/2021 Terkait Klausula Arbitrase Perjanjian Jual Beli Saham. NOVUM : Jurnal Hukum, 9(02), 515–522. https://doi.org/10.2674/novum.v0i0.63443
  49. Low, G. (2010). The (Ir)Relevance of Harmonization and Legal Diversity to European Contract Law: A Perspective from Psychology. European Review of Private Law, 18(2), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.54648/erpl2010018
  50. Małecka, M. (2017). Posner Versus Kelsen: The Challenges for Scientific Analysis of Law. European Journal of Law and Economics, 43(3), 495–516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-016-9552-1
  51. Markovits, D. (2004). Contract and Collaboration. The Yale Law Journal, 113(7), 1417–1518. https://doi.org/10.2307/4135772
  52. Michelman, F. I. (1979). A Comment on “Some Uses and Abuses of Economics in Law.” The University of Chicago Law Review, 46(2), 307–315. https://doi.org/10.2307/1599455
  53. Mills, A. (2018). Party Autonomy in Private International Law. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge Core. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139941419
  54. Mills, A. (2019). Conceptualising Party Autonomy in Private International Law. Revue Critique de Droit International Privé, N° 2(2), 417–426. https://doi.org/10.3917/rcdip.192.0417
  55. Mitchell, C. E. (2013). Contract Law and Contract Practice: Bridging the Gap Between Legal Reasoning and Commercial Expectation. Bloomsbury Publishing
  56. Mochtar, Z. A. (2015). Antinomi Dalam Peraturan Perundang-Undangan Di Indonesia. Hasanuddin Law Review, 1(3), 316–336. https://doi.org/10.20956/halrev.v1i3.112
  57. Morgan, J. E. (2013). Contract Law Minimalism: A Formalist Restatement of Commercial Contract Law. Cambridge University Press
  58. Ott, W., & Stewart, I. (2023). Report of a visit to Prof HLA Hart in Oxford. Jurisprudence, 14(2), 254–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/20403313.2023.2214483
  59. Penasthika, P. P. (2019). The Mandatory Use of National Language in Indonesia and Belgium: An Obstacle to International Contracting? Indonesia Law Review, 9(2), 83–104. https://doi.org/10.15742/ilrev.v9n2.537
  60. Penner, J. E. (1996). Voluntary Obligations and the Scope of the Law of Contract. Legal Theory, 2(4), 325–357. Cambridge Core. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352325200000562
  61. Pertiwi, C. I. (2018). Implikasi Hukum Kontrak Bisnis Internasional yang Dibuat dalam Bahasa Asing. Notarius, 11(1), 13–31. https://doi.org/10.14710/nts.v11i1.23122
  62. Phang, A. B., & Yihan, G. (2021). Contract Law in Singapore. Kluwer Law International BV
  63. Phang, A., & Goh, Y. (2019). Contract law in Commonwealth countries: Uniformity or divergence? Singapore Academy of Law Journal, 31(1), 170–245. (informit.386118135229007). https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.386118135229007
  64. Posner, R. A. (2011). Economic Analysis of Law. Aspen Publishers
  65. Priyono, E. A., Saputra, D. A., Nugroho, S. S., & Tri, D. (2025). Standard Agreements: Review of the Principles Pacta Sunt Servanda, Good Faith and Fairness. Lex Scientia Law Review, 9(2), 1376–1407. https://doi.org/10.15294/lslr.v9i2.25800
  66. Radbruch, G. (2006a). Five Minutes of Legal Philosophy (1945)*. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 26(1), 13–15. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqi042
  67. Radbruch, G. (2006b). Statutory Lawlessness and Supra-Statutory Law (1946)*. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 26(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqi041
  68. Rajagukguk, F. B. (2023). Pembatalan Perjanjian Karena Ketiadaan Bahasa Indonesia: Kajian Putusan Nomor 590/PDT.G/2018/PN.Jkt.Pst. Jurnal Yudisial, 16(1), 83–102. https://doi.org/10.29123/jy.v16i1.515
  69. Réaume, D. G. (2000). Official‐Language Rights: Intrinsic Value and the Protection of Difference. In W. Kymlicka & W. Norman (Eds.), Citizenship in Diverse Societies (p. 0). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/019829770X.003.0010
  70. Ristiyana, G., Prananingtyas, P., & Irawati, I. (2021). Tinjauan Yuridis Terhadap Perjanjian Kontrak Berbahasa Asing Pasca Berakunya Undang Undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2009. Notarius, 14(1), 598–615. https://doi.org/10.14710/nts.v14i1.39136
  71. Savić, V.-I. (2023). Radbruch’s Formula and the Conscience of a Saint: Cardinal Alojzije V. Stepinac. Studia z Prawa Wyznaniowego, 26, 147–170. https://doi.org/10.31743/spw.14455
  72. Scheltema, M. W. (2004). A European View on Enrichment by Performance. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 11(1), 71–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X0401100104
  73. Scherer, M. (2016). The Fate of Parties’ Agreements on Judicial Review of Awards: A Comparative and Normative Analysis of Party-Autonomy at the Post-Award Stage. Arbitration International, 32(3), 437–457. https://doi.org/10.1093/arbint/aiw018
  74. Scheuerman, W. E. (1999). Free Market Anti-Formalism: The Case of Richard Posner. Ratio Juris, 12(1), 80–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9337.00109
  75. Shariff, N. A. (2025). Contract Law in Malaysia: Reflections on Its Ideologies and Concepts. Journal of Governance and Development (JGD), 1, 32–39. https://e-journal.uum.edu.my/index.php/jgd/article/view/13426
  76. Shoimah, S. N. (2026). Freedom of Contract in the Digital Age: Perspectives on the Indonesian Civil Code and Fiqh Muamalah. Trunojoyo Law Review, 8(1), 59–94. https://doi.org/10.21107/tlr.v8i1.32568
  77. Singh, D., & Tiong, R. L. K. (2006). Contractor Selection Criteria: Investigation of Opinions of Singapore Construction Practitioners. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(9), 998–1008. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:9(998)
  78. Suchman, M. C. (2003). The Contract as Social Artifact. Law & Society Review, 37(1), 91–142. Cambridge Core. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5893.3701003
  79. Sugiastuti, N. Y., & Purnamasari, D. (2023). Improvement of Substantive Provisions of the Validity of Agreement in the Indonesian Civil Code. Diponegoro Law Review, 8(1), 124–140. https://doi.org/10.14710/dilrev.8.1.2023.124-140
  80. Sumarsih, I. (2025). Challenging Nominee Agreements in the Mining Industry: Between Constitutional Mandates and Legal Evasion. Indonesia Law Review, 15(1), 71–85. https://doi.org/10.15742/ilrev.v15n1.5
  81. Susanto, G., Pickus, D., Espree-Conaway, D., Suparmi, Rusiandi, A., & Noviya, H. (2024). Indonesian Language Policy and Perspectives on Its Implementation in Promoting Bahasa Indonesia as an International Language. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 11(1), 2364511. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2024.2364511
  82. Suwarno, B. (2020). Acquisition Planning for Regional Indigenous Heritage Languages in Indonesia. Sage Open, 10(3), 2158244020948843. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020948843
  83. Suzor, N. (2018). Digital Constitutionalism: Using the Rule of Law to Evaluate the Legitimacy of Governance by Platforms. Social Media + Society, 4(3), 2056305118787812. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118787812
  84. Symeonides, S. C. (2025). Party Autonomy Then and Now. German Law Journal, 26(5), 703–733. Cambridge Core. https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2025.10136
  85. Tang, Z. (2007). Parties’ Choice of Law in E-Consumer Contracts. Journal of Private International Law, 3(1), 113–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/17536235.2007.11424319
  86. Teubner, G. (2000). Contracting Worlds: The Many Autonomies of Private Law. Social & Legal Studies, 9(3), 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/096466390000900305
  87. Tunggono, M., & Dwiyatmi, S. H. (2024). Keabsahan Kontrak yang Menggunakan Bahasa Asing. The Juris, 8(1), 80–86. https://doi.org/10.56301/juris.v8i1.1178
  88. Uçaryılmaz, T. (2020). El Principio De Buena Fe En El Derecho Internacional Público. Estudios de Deusto, 68(1), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.18543/ed-68(1)-2020pp43-59
  89. Vang-Phu, T., & Son, D. A. (2024). The Concerns of Nation-State Sovereignty and International Commercial Law: A Path to Harmonisation. Khazanah Hukum, 6(1), 34–45. https://doi.org/10.15575/kh.v6i1.33809
  90. Waspiah, W. (2022). Renewal of the Constitutive National Law System in Industrial Design. Jurnal Hukum Progresif, 10(2), 86–98. https://doi.org/10.14710/jhp.10.2.86-98
  91. Wessels, B. (1994). Civil Code Revision in the Netherlands: System, Contents and Future. Netherlands International Law Review, 41(2), 163–199. Cambridge Core. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0165070X0000317X
  92. Wissink, M. H. (2012). Legal certainty and the construction of contracts in Dutch law. BW-Krant Jaarboek, 27, 41–55. https://hdl.handle.net/1887/36710
  93. Wiwoho, J., & Mashdurohatun, A. (2022). Hukum Kontrak, Ekonomi Syariah dan Etika Bisnis. Undip Press
  94. Wong, B. Y. (2019). Endeavours Clauses in Singapore Contract Law. Singapore Academy of Law Journal, 31(2), 1068–1095. (informit.783633943585784). https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.783633943585784
  95. Zain, N. R. B. M., Ali, E. R. A. E., Abideen, A., & Rahman, H. A. (2019). Smart Contract in Blockchain: An Exploration of Legal Framework in Malaysia. Intellectual Discourse, 27(2), 595–617. https://doi.org/10.31436/id.v27i2.1435
  96. Zantinge, J. (2023, October 24). The interpretation of contracts in the Netherlands – an overview of the legal framework. Bird & Bird. Bird & Bird Insights. https://www.twobirds.com/en/insights/2023/netherlands/the-interpretation-of-contracts-in-the-netherlands-an-overview-of-the-legal-framework
  97. Zhang, N., Hwang, B.-G., Deng, X., & Tay, F. (2020). Collaborative Contracting in the Singapore Construction Industry: Current Status, Major Barriers and Best Solutions. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 27(10), 3115–3133. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-08-2019-0451
  98. Zulhafiz, W. (2015). Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977: Does it provide a good model in regulating risk allocation provisions in oilfield contracts in Malaysia? International Journal of Trade and Global Markets, 8(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTGM.2015.067969
  99. Zumbansen, P. (2007). The Law of Society: Governance Through Contract. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 14(2), 191–233. https://doi.org/10.2979/gls.2007.14.2.191

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update: 2026-06-23 09:44:43

No citation recorded.