Abstract

The purpose of this study is to analyze: 1) Why do franchise agreements tend to be made by default? 2) Why is the content of franchise agreements that are in accordance with article 1320 often considered unfair to the franchisee?3) Is the application of the principle of good faith consistently able to create an ideal contract in the practice of franchise contracts that are in a standard form?. This research is a type of normative juridical research with a legislative approach, a conceptual approach, and a case study. The results of the study show that: 1) Standard contracts are very appropriate to be used in the franchise business when compared to negotiated agreements. Standard/standard contracts are not only used for large-scale business agreements, as they appear at every level of business transactions even small-scale businesses. 2) The first and second conditions in article 1320 of the Criminal Code are often called subjective conditions because they concern the parties to the agreement. The third and fourth conditions in article 1320 of the Criminal Code are called objective conditions, because they concern the object of the agreement. If the first and second conditions are not met, the agreement can be canceled. If the third and fourth conditions are not met, then the agreement is null and void, meaning that the agreement was originally considered to have never happened. 3) The inclusion of good faith in the implementation of the franchise agreement also means that we must interpret the agreement based on fairness and propriety. In the Civil Code, propriety (the principle of propriety) is stated in Article 1339 of the Civil Code which states that the agreement is not only binding for things that are expressly stated in it, but also for everything that according to propriety, custom or law. 

Keywords: Application, Principles, Good Faith, Create, Justice, Contracting, Agreement, Standard, Franchizing, Indonesia