The Appropriateness of Goods Returns and Replacements in Sales Contracts: An Analysis Based on the Principle of Good Faith

Goods return mechanisms in sales contracts may give rise to disputes when replacement goods fail to conform to agreed-upon specifications or when contractual obligations are not fulfilled within the prescribed time frame. This study aims to establish parameters for assessing the appropriateness of goods returns and to examine the role of the principle of good faith under Article 1338(3), in conjunction with Article 1339, of the Indonesian Civil Code. The study employs a normative legal research method using statutory, conceptual, and case-based approaches, with legal materials analyzed qualitatively. The findings identify five parameters for assessing appropriateness: conformity of replacement goods with agreed-upon specifications, reasonableness of the grounds for rejection, adequacy of evidence demonstrating nonconformity, consistency in the parties’ conduct, and compliance with agreed-upon deadlines. The principle of good faith functions as an objective standard for evaluating the reasonableness of the parties’ contractual performance. The study concludes that the assessment of goods returns and replacements should consider the substance of contractual performance, the available evidence, and the consistency of the parties’ conduct. These considerations can support fair dispute resolution while promoting legal certainty.