Skip to content

What Indonesian courts would likely say in respect of Article 31 of Law No. 24/2009

April 10, 2010

If you have read my post regarding the mandatory use of Indonesian language in written agreements and memoranda of understanding involving Indonesian nationals under Article 31 of Law No. 24/2009 that should be read in conjunction with Article 32 of the same Law, and if you agree with me, then you can say that with regard to the rules and law of evidence, Indonesian courts would likely consider only the Indonesian version of all written agreements and memoranda of understanding that were executed in Indonesia and which enforcement in Indonesia would be sought; and Indonesian courts would likely require the authenticated Indonesian sworn translation of the aforesaid documents that were executed outside of the jurisdiction of Indonesia.

Thus, whatever the parties may have agreed to in the written agreements and/or memoranda of understanding regarding the language governing the interpretation of such written agreements and/or memoranda of understanding would not be considered by Indonesian courts, due to the principle of privity of contract (Article 1340 of the Indonesian Civil Code – agreements bind only the parties who make them… etc), whereas Indonesian courts and any third parties are not parties to such written agreements and/or memoranda of understanding.

Any comments?

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: