Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.61
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Reformasi Hukum Trisakti Jurnal Riset Multidisiplin Edukasi
N.G.N Renti Maharaini
Unknown Affiliation
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Other

Published : 3 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 3 Documents
Search

 1 
TANGGUNG JAWAB PELAKU USAHA TERHADAP KONSUMEN ATAS PENJUALAN EMAS TIDAK SESUAI KADAR EMAS BERDASARKAN HUKUM PERLINDUNGAN KONSUMEN: Business Responsibility For Sale Of Gold Which Is Not According To Gold Content Based On Consumer Protection Law Zulfikar Hidayat; N.G.N Renti Maharaini
Reformasi Hukum Trisakti Vol 7 No 1 (2025): Reformasi Hukum Trisakti
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Trisakti

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25105/refor.v7i1.21537

Abstract

The Responsibility of Business Actors to Consumers for Selling Gold Not in Accordance with Promised Gold Content Based on decision No. 8/Pid.Sus/2022/PT BNA, the issue at hand is: What is the responsibility of business actors to consumers for selling gold that does not meet the promised gold content according to Law No. 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection, and whether Decision No. 8/Pid.Sus/2022/PT BNA regarding business actors selling gold not in accordance with the promised gold content complies with Law No. 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection. This article discusses the issue using normative research that is descriptive in nature, with library studies analyzed qualitatively to draw conclusions deductively. The results and conclusions indicate that Toko Emas Asia Banda Aceh must take responsibility in accordance with Article 19 paragraph (1) of the law for consumer losses resulting from the sale of gold not matching the promised content by providing compensation in the form of a refund or replacement with equivalent goods or services. Furthermore, Decision No. 8/Pid.Sus/2022/PT BNA is not in accordance with Law No. 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection because it only imposed criminal sanctions on the business actor Toko Emas Asia Banda Aceh. According to Article 28 of the Consumer Protection Law, judges must provide reverse proof to business actors for consumer losses.
ANALISIS YURIDIS PERSEKONGKOLAN TENDER (STUDI PUTUSAN KPPU NOMOR 30/KPPU-I/2019) Tsaliza Soraya Majid; N.G.N Renti Maharaini
Reformasi Hukum Trisakti Vol 5 No 4 (2023): Reformasi Hukum Trisakti
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Trisakti

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25105/refor.v5i4.18379

Abstract

This journal examines the extent to which the sanctions imposed by the KPPU in its Decision No. 30/KPPU-I/2019 are in line with Law No. 5 of 1999 concerning the Prohibition of Monopoly Practices and Unfair Business Competition, as well as the Regulation of the Goods/Services Procurement Policy Institution No. 12 of 2021 amending Presidential Regulation No. 16 of 2018 on Government Goods and Services Procurement. It also explores whether businesses are allowed to use another company's identity in the tender process. Based on research conducted using the Competition Law, Article 22 Guidelines, and relevant regulations, collusion is identified both horizontally and vertically, so in this case PT Hapsari Nusantara Gemilang and PT Ikhlas Bangunan Sarana should be placed on a blacklist, and PT Cipta Aksara Perkasa should face administrative fines. Additionally, PT Alfa Adiel should receive sanctions for using another company's identity in the tender process, which undermines fair competition. It is recommended that businesses uphold good faith by adhering to existing regulations during the tender process
TANGGUNG JAWAB PEMULIHAN HAK KONSUMEN YANG DIRUGIKAN BERDASARKAN UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 8 TAHUN 1999 TENTANG PERLINDUNGAN KONSUMEN Vasya Hana Namira; N.G.N Renti Maharaini
Jurnal Riset Multidisiplin Edukasi Vol. 2 No. 11 (2025): Jurnal Riset Multidisiplin Edukasi (Edisi November 2025)
Publisher : PT. Hasba Edukasi Mandiri

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.71282/jurmie.v2i11.1225

Abstract

The meikarta development process has experienced several cases that have made the construction late until now, not only that, some standard clauses contained in the Affirmation and Approval of Unit Reservation (P3U) dated August 18, 2017, which is the PPJB in this case are often used by business actors to include exoneration clauses. The researcher apply the problem is of whether consumers can receive compensation and how the developer's responsibility for the delay in construction, and whether the P3U is proven to violate the GCPL. The research method is normative legal research, descriptive in nature, using secondary data made from primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials, analyzed qualitatively, and drawing conclusions using deductive logic. Based on the analysis conducted, it is known that the P3U issued by the developer contains several standard clauses called exoneration clauses or prohibited clauses in accordance with Article 18 of the GCPL because they are detrimental to consumers. It is also known that consumers are entitled to receive compensation that must be implemented by the developer due to delays in construction in accordance with what has been stated in the P3U which in this case is a PPJB.
Co-Authors Tsaliza Soraya Majid Vasya Hana Namira Zulfikar Hidayat