| dc.description.abstract | Employment agreements in the context of fire hydrant system procurement possess specific characteristics due to their technical complexity and high investment value. These agreements regulate not only technical and financial aspects but also include quality assurance, safety standards, and testing procedures that must comply with both national and international regulations. This thesis formulates the following research problems: (1) How are the principles of contract law applied in the work agreement for the fire hydrant system procurement project? (2) What are the factors that lead to a breach of contract in the implementation of the fire hydrant system procurement project agreement, and what are the legal consequences for the parties involved based on the Decision of the High Court of Medan No. 100/Pdt.G/2023/PT Mdn? and (3) How did the judges consider the legal aspects in resolving the breach of contract dispute in the fire hydrant system procurement project agreement based on the aforementioned decision?
This research uses a normative juridical method, which refers to legal norms through a literature study to obtain secondary data consisting of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials relevant to the issues studied. The research is descriptive in nature, with data analyzed qualitatively.
The findings show that the application of contract law principles in the fire hydrant system project agreement includes consensualism, freedom of contract, good faith, pacta sunt servanda, force majeure, and contractual balance to ensure the validity of the contract. In the case of Decision No. 100/Pdt.G/2023/PT Mdn by the High Court of Medan, a breach of contract occurred when the Defendant failed to obtain the necessary site access permits in accordance with Addendum No. 002/STM-BSP/VIII/2014, despite repeated requests by the Plaintiff, which ultimately prevented workers from completing the fire hydrant system installation. However, the court’s legal reasoning was flawed as it did not take into account the Plaintiff's obligation as a contractor to coordinate with the landowner, nor the possibility of the Plaintiff's inability to complete the remaining work. The judgment requiring the Defendant to pay the full contract amount of IDR 1,020,000,000 plus 2% interest appeared disproportionate, as it failed to consider the actual progress of the work. Compensation should have been calculated based on the value of the work already performed, not the total contract value. | en_US |
