For multinational companies, the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) often forms the bedrock of global trade. This convention provides a uniform and predictable set of rules for contracts of sale, having been ratified by almost all major economic powers including the U.S., China, Germany, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea.
However, as you expand into Indonesia, one of Southeast Asia’s fastest-growing markets, you’ll encounter a significant legal particularity: Indonesia has not ratified the CISG.
This fact is frequently overlooked and can create serious legal risks for foreign companies accustomed to the flexibility and international standards of the CISG.
This article is a strategic guide for you to understand what this “CISG gap” means and how to protect your business interests.
The biggest risk lies in assumptions. Your company (e.g., from Germany) might be accustomed to closing multi-million dollar deals through a series of emails. Under the CISG (Article 11), such contracts are valid and binding without the need for formal written signatures.
However, your Indonesian partners operate under a different legal system, namely the Indonesian Civil Code (KUHPerdata). This system, rooted in Dutch law, is far more formal and often heavily relies on formally signed written evidence.
If a dispute arises, you might be surprised to learn that your email contract is considered to have weak evidential force in Indonesian courts.
Because Indonesia is not a CISG member state, its national law (KUHPerdata) is not automatically superseded in international trade.
Indonesian law is likely to apply in the following scenarios:
Express Choice of Law: If your contract explicitly states, “This contract shall be governed by the laws of the Republic of Indonesia.”
No Choice of Law (Worst-Case Scenario): If your contract is silent on the choice of law, a court or arbitrator will use principles of Private International Law to determine the applicable law. Often, this could lead to the application of the law of the seller’s domicile or the place of main contract performance. If your partner is an Indonesian seller, you run a significant risk of being subjected to the unfamiliar KUHPerdata system.
For your company’s contract managers or legal advisors, these differences are critical. The KUHPerdata differs from the CISG in several crucial aspects:
CISG (Article 11): Highly flexible. A contract of sale needs not be concluded or evidenced in writing. Oral agreements or emails are sufficient.
KUHPerdata: More formal. While adhering to the principle of consensualism, judicial practice in Indonesia heavily relies on “authentic deeds” or “underhand deeds” (signed written contracts). Proving an oral contract is very difficult.
CISG (Article 19): Adopts a more modern approach. If your Purchase Order (PO) is met with an Invoice containing immaterial additional terms, a contract is still formed.
KUHPerdata: Tends to follow the classic “Mirror Image Rule.” If an acceptance does not precisely mirror the offer, it is considered a counter-offer. This can mean no contract is formed at all, even if goods have been shipped.
CISG: Provides a clear concept of “fundamental breach,” which entitles the aggrieved party to immediately avoid the contract.
KUHPerdata: The process is more procedural. To declare your partner in breach, you often must first send a formal “somasi” (warning letter), which can be time-consuming and delay your legal remedies.
Knowing that Indonesia does not apply the CISG, you must be proactive, not reactive. Never sign a contract with an Indonesian partner without securing your legal clauses.
Never leave the choice of law clause blank. It’s an unnecessary gamble. Uncertainty is your biggest enemy.
The safest approach for foreign companies is to propose the law of a jurisdiction that has ratified the CISG.
Best (Neutral) Option: “This contract shall be governed by the laws of Singapore.” Since Singapore is a CISG member state, the CISG will automatically apply to your contract. This provides predictability and a neutral framework.
Second Option (Your Own Law): “This contract shall be governed by the laws of Germany.” Similarly, since Germany is a member state, the CISG will apply.
Sometimes, your Indonesian partner may have strong bargaining power and insist on using Indonesian law. This is a higher-risk scenario, but you can still manage it.
If you must choose Indonesian law, ironically, your best strategy is to expressly exclude the CISG to avoid confusion.
Example Clause:
“This contract shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Republic of Indonesia. The parties hereby expressly agree that the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) 1980 shall not apply to this contract.”
Why do this? Because if you don’t exclude it, there’s a theoretical (albeit small) risk that an Indonesian court could try to apply the CISG through complex Private International Law rules. It’s better to have one clear set of rules (i.e., KUHPerdata alone) that you can study and anticipate, rather than be caught in a legal limbo between two systems.
Doing business with Indonesia offers tremendous opportunities. However, Indonesia’s non-participation in the CISG is a real legal risk that must be managed.
For foreign companies, predictability is everything. Do not assume that your global business practices automatically apply. Secure your contracts with clear choice-of-law clauses, aim for the CISG to apply by selecting a member state jurisdiction (like Singapore), and understand the fundamental differences with KUHPerdata if you are compelled to use it.
Disclaimer:
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Your company should always seek advice from qualified legal counsel regarding your specific situation.
Share Now:
