Hardship as a Defense to Non-performance of Contract: Can it be Applied in Indonesian Contract Law?

A valid agreement establishes a legally binding relationship between parties, imposing an obligation on each to adhere to the terms. Any failure by one party to fulfill their agreed-to obligations is deemed a breach or default of the contract. Non-performance may arise due to events or circumstances beyond the party's control and ability to perform. In addition to force majeure, hardships are recognized as an additional factor in practical development. The problem is that, in contrast to the argument of force majeure, which Indonesian law reculates through the Civil Code, the argument of hardship remains unregulated. To address this gap, the purpose of this research is to clarify the concept of hardship in legal doctrine and its potential applicability in cases of non-performance under Indonesian law. The study raises a research question: Can Indonesian judges utilize the hardship argument in non-performance cases? This is normative legal research. The research is descriptive and employs primary and secondary legal materials. The analysis is qualitative, and conclusions are drawn through deductive methods. Based on this research, Indonesian courts and judges can utilize hardship arguments grounded in the principle of good faith or classified as relative force majeure.