Reconstruction of the Principle of Balance in Standard Contracts to Achieve Substantive Justice for Consumers

This study examines how the principle of balance in standard form contracts should be reconstructed to achieve substantive justice for consumers amid the dominance of freedom of contract and disparities in the parties’ bargaining power. The research problem concerns the inadequacy of formal contractual validity as a measure of justice where consumers are placed merely in a position to accept or reject clauses unilaterally determined by businesses. This study employs normative legal research using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches, through an analysis of the Indonesian Civil Code, Law Number 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection, Law Number 1 of 2024 on Electronic Information and Transactions, legal doctrines, and judicial decisions concerning standard clauses. The findings establish a legal construction in which the principle of balance functions as a substantive standard for assessing not only the existence of consent, but also the fairness of the distribution of rights, obligations, and risks between the parties. This reconstruction rests on three elements: broadening the function of good faith as a basis for correcting unfair clauses; judicial assessment of the substantive fairness of contracts notwithstanding compliance with formal requirements; and preventive supervision through stronger regulation and standardisation of standard clauses in vulnerable sectors. The novelty lies in conceptualising the principle of balance as a corrective instrument linking the Civil Code with the consumer protection regime, thereby limiting freedom of contract through proportionality and protection of the factually weaker party. Under this construction, the validity of standard form contracts depends not only on formal legality but also on substantive justice.