Vol 11 No 1 (2023): June
Business Law

Redefining Privity of Contract: The Untapped Rights of Consumers in Goods Delivery Agreements
Mendefinisikan Ulang Privity of Contract: Hak-hak Konsumen yang Belum Tersentuh dalam Perjanjian Pengiriman Barang

Ghozi Naufal Qois
Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia *
Zahry Vandawati Chumaida
Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia
Bambang Sugeng Ariadi Subagyono
Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia
Bio

(*) Corresponding Author


Picture in here are illustration from public domain image or provided by the author, as part of their works
Published June 29, 2023
Keywords
  • Privity of Contract,
  • Consumer Protection,
  • Goods Delivery Agreements,
  • Legal Standing,
  • Ex Aequo et Bono
How to Cite
Qois, G. N., Chumaida, Z. V., & Subagyono, B. S. A. (2023). Redefining Privity of Contract: The Untapped Rights of Consumers in Goods Delivery Agreements. Rechtsidee, 11(1), 10.21070/jihr.v12i1.980. https://doi.org/10.21070/jihr.v12i1.980
 

Abstract

This study critically analyses the entrenched concept of the privity of contract doctrine within the context of goods delivery agreements and its impact on the final consumer, specifically focusing on issues of delayed delivery and consequential losses. Adopting normative legal research methodologies, it employs statutory, conceptual, and case-based approaches to dissect this complex consumer protection issue. The research reveals that while the privity of contract paradigm posits rights and obligations as exclusive to the contracting parties, the final consumer, as the recipient of goods, possesses legal standing in cases of delivery negligence or incurred losses. The study also highlights the consumer's right to delivery in accordance with the agreed terms, even when not a primary party in the agreement, as long as the goods are not for resale. The paper concludes by emphasizing the critical role of judges in assessing immaterial losses based on the principle of ex aequo et bono, thus underscoring a shift towards a caveat vendor approach in consumer law, with significant implications for both business actors and global consumer protection frameworks.

Highlights:

  • The concept of privity of contract is not absolute in goods delivery agreements, and the final consumer can possess legal standing in cases of delivery negligence or incurred losses.
  • The recipient of goods, even when not a primary party in the agreement, maintains the right to delivery in accordance with the agreed terms, provided the goods are not intended for resale.
  • Judges play a pivotal role in quantifying immaterial losses, underlining the shift towards a caveat vendor approach in consumer law.

Keywords: Privity of Contract, Consumer Protection, Goods Delivery Agreements, Legal Standing, Ex Aequo et Bono.

 

 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

  1. F. Christian, “2020, Potensi Pertumbuhan Bisnis Logistik Lebih Dari 30%,” 2019.
  2. A. A. Musyafah, H. W. Khasna, and B. E. Turisno, “Perlindungan Konsumen Jasa Pengiriman Barang Dalam Hal Terjadi Keterlambatan Pengiriman Barang,” Law Reform, vol. 14, no. 2, 2018.
  3. Nofellisa, “Konsumen Adukan TIKI ke Komisi VI DPR RI,” 2020.
  4. I. P. G. R. E. Wijaya and I. W. N. Purwanto, “Perlindungan Hukum terhadap Konsumen Akibat Terjadinya Kesalahan dan Keterlambatan dalam Pengiriman Barang,” J. Kertha Negara, vol. 8, no. 8, 2020.
  5. N. Juwitasari, D. S. RS, M. Junaidi, and Soegianto, “Perlindungan Konsumen terhadap Pengguna Jasa Ekspedisi,” J. USM Law Rev., vol. 4, no. 2, 2021.
  6. A. A. T. Jadda, “Perlindungan Hukum Bagi Konsumen terhadap Produk Pangan Industri Rumah Tangga yang Tidak Berlabel di Kabupaten Enrekang,” Madani Leg. Rev., vol. 2, no. 2, 2018.
  7. S. A. Nugroho, Proses Penyelesaian Sengketa Konsumen Ditinjau Dari Hukum Acara Serta Kendala Implemntasinya. jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group, 2008.
  8. Amiruddin and Z. Asikin, Pengantar Metode Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: PT. Raja Grafindo Persada, 2018.
  9. R. Soebekti and R. Tjitrosudibio, Terjemahan Burgerlijk Wetboek Dalam Bahasa Indonesia, 43rd ed. Jakarta: Pradnya Paramita, 2017.
  10. R. Soebekti, Hukum Perjanjian. jakarta: Intermasa, 1996.
  11. R. Setiawan, Pokok - Pokok Hukum Perikatan. Jakarta: Binacipta, 1987.
  12. R. M. Suryodiningrat, Asas - Asan Hukum Perikatan. Bandung: Tarsito, 1985.
  13. A. Y. Hernoko, Hukum Perjanjian - Asas Proposionalitas Dalam Kontrak Komersial. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group, 2014.
  14. A. Kadir and Muhammad, Hukum Pengangkutan Darat, Laut, Udara. Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti, 1991.
  15. W. Adriyani and H. S. Boentoro, Buku Ajar Hukum Pengangkutan. Surabaya: Fakultas Hukum Universitas Airlangga, 2007.
  16. N. Nuswardhani and W. V. Izziyana, “Aspek Hukum Dalam Pelaksanaan Pengiriman Barang,” J. Justiciabelen, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 11, 2021, doi: 10.30587/justiciabelen.v4i1.2766.
  17. S. Wiwoho, Hukum Pengangkutan Laut di Indonesia dan Perkembangannya. Yogyakarta: Liberty, 1987.
  18. G. A. Barakabessy, Leonora, Buku Ajar Hukum Perikatan, 1st ed. Sidoarjo: Zifatama Jawara, 2018.
  19. N. H. . Siahaan, Hukum Konsumen. Jakarta: Panta Rei, 2005.
  20. J. Sidabaiok, Hukum Perlindungan Konsumen Di Indonesia. Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti, 2006.
  21. Shidarta, Hukum Perlindungan Konsumen Indonesia. Jakarta: Grassindo, 2006.
  22. V. Daskalova, “Consumer Welfare in EU Competition Law : What Is It ( Not ) About ?,” Compet. Law Rev., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 131–160, 2008.
  23. J. Satrio, Hukum Perjanjian. Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti, 1992.
  24. J. K. Putra, T. B. D. Nagara, and N. Pratiwi, “Pertanggungjawaban Hukum Pelaku Usaha Penyedia Jasa Parkir pada Hotel Jatra Kota Balikpapan Berdasarkan Prinsip Pertanggungjawaban Profesional,” J. jure, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 3–18, 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.36277/.v10i2.27.
  25. I. A. Krismat Hutagalung, Hasnati, “Perlindungan Hukum Konsumen Terhadap Perjanjian Baku Yang Merugikan Konsumen,” Mizan, vol. 10, no. 2, p. 209, 2021.
  26. I. G. A. Kurniawan, L. de D. M. Lulo, and F. P. Disantara, “IUS Constituendum of Expert Advisor in Commodity Futures Trading: A Legal Certainty,” J. IUS Kaji. Huk. dan Keadilan, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 31–45, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.29303/ius.v11i1.1170.
  27. I. G. A. Kurniawan, “Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Terhadap Undang-Undang Cipta Kerja Dalam Perspektif Filsafat Utilitarianisme,” J. USM LAW Rev., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 282–298, 2022, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.26623/julr.v5i1.4941.