Judicial Experiences and Interpretive Practices in Breach of Electronic Contract Cases Among Civil Judges in Indonesia: A Socio-Legal and Doctrinal Analysis

Abstract

The increasing digitization of civil obligations has transformed the nature of contract formation, enforcement, and breach in contemporary legal systems. While the legal framework for electronic contracts has evolved, little is known about how judges subjectively experience and interpret breaches within digital transaction contexts. This gap in the literature reflects a lack of systematic attention to the judicial perspective, despite its critical role in shaping consistency, predictability, and fairness in electronic contract enforcement. Moreover, limited scholarly focus on the Indonesian context means that both legal practitioners and policymakers lack nuanced guidance on how courts are adapting to digital disputes. The lack of empirical research on judges’ internal reasoning in these cases raises the question: How do judges perceive and assign meaning to breaches of electronic contracts in civil litigation? This study employs a descriptive phenomenological approach to explore the lived experiences of Indonesian civil judges who have adjudicated breach of contract cases involving electronic transactions. Through semi-structured interviews with six judges and thematic analysis of the transcribed narratives, the study reveals three central themes: interpretive engagement with digital evidence, balancing formal law with contextual justice, and bearing moral responsibility amid legal ambiguity. These findings demonstrate that judicial reasoning is shaped not only by procedural knowledge but also by ethical reflection, situational awareness, and the interpretive nature of legal practice in the digital age. In practical terms, the study highlights how judges’ interpretive practices can inform the refinement of procedural rules, judicial training, and legal education to better address disputes in a digitized economy. The results contribute new insights into how judges navigate legal uncertainty, and they underscore the value of phenomenological inquiry in legal scholarship. This study advances our understanding of the human dimension of judicial decision-making and offers a foundation for future research on legal reasoning in rapidly evolving technological environments. Nevertheless, the study is limited by its small sample size of six judges and its focus on a single jurisdiction, which may affect the generalizability of the findings. Future research should expand to include comparative perspectives across jurisdictions and larger participant groups to deepen and broaden these insights.