Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

Wanprestasi Dalam Jual Beli Batubara Imtiyaz, Ahmad Rais; Putra, Akasyah Rizwan Kurnia; Karo, Erland Zuhdi Karo; Nawawi, Fatkhurrohkman; Tarina, Dwi Desi Yayi
Indonesian Research Journal on Education Vol. 5 No. 4 (2025): Irje 2025
Publisher : Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan, Universitas Pahlawan Tuanku Tambusai

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31004/irje.v5i4.2818

Abstract

Perjanjian merupakan alat hukum yang penting dalam kehidupan masyarakat, baik dalam hubungan bisnis, keluarga, maupun hubungan pribadi. Dalam hukum perdata, perjanjian tidak hanya mengatur hak dan kewajiban para pihak, tetapi juga harus memenuhi sejumlah asas yang mendasari keabsahan dan pelaksanaan perjanjian tersebut. Artikel ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis asas-asas utama dalam perjanjian menurut hukum perdata Indonesia, seperti asas kebebasan berkontrak, asas konsensualisme, asas itikad baik, asas pacta sunt servanda, asas keseimbangan, dan asas kepatuhan terhadap hukum. Penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa asas-asas tersebut tidak hanya menjadi pedoman dalam penyusunan perjanjian, tetapi juga memberikan jaminan kepastian hukum bagi para pihak yang terlibat. Dalam praktiknya, penerapan asas-asas ini sangat penting untuk menghindari terjadinya ketidakadilan dan penyalahgunaan dalam proses perjanjian.
Analisis Kasus Perikatan: Wanprestasi dalam Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Barat Nomor 785/PDT.G/2023/PN.JKT.BRT Putra, Akasyah Rizwan Kurnia; Karo, Erland Zuhdi Karo; Hisyam, Cyrill Milanesta
Media Hukum Indonesia (MHI) Vol 4, No 1 (2026): March
Publisher : Penerbit Yayasan Daarul Huda Kruengmane

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17897913

Abstract

 Wanprestasi is the debtor's negligence in fulfilling promised performance as defined in Articles 1234 and 1238 of the Civil Code, including failure to perform what was promised, performing inappropriately, being late, or violating the prohibitions of the agreement. This research uses a normative juridical method with a case study approach based on the West Jakarta District Court Decision Number 785/Pdt.G/2023/PN Jkt.Brt to analyze the multipurpose financing agreement case.The case chronology begins with Multipurpose Financing Agreement Number 70413741911 dated September 6, 2019, between PT Clipan Finance Indonesia Tbk (Plaintiff) and Suryani (Defendant) for the purchase of a BMW 320i worth Rp 1,009,620,000 with installments of Rp 16,827,000 per month for 60 months, secured by fiduciary. The Defendant stopped paying after the 20th installment on May 6, 2021. The Plaintiff sent warning letters on May 14 and 22, 2021. The vehicle became evidence of a pyramid scheme crime according to Supreme Court Decision Number 583 K/KPid.Sus/2022. The Plaintiff sued for breach of contract with a demand of more than IDR 1.5 billion plus IDR 500 million in immaterial damages, confiscation, and execution of fiduciary duties. The trial was cancelled because the Defendant failed to appear despite being legally summoned; the judge acknowledged the agreement as valid by considering Articles 1320 and 1338 of the Civil Code, and the breach of contract was proven from Exhibits P-1 to P-19. However, the lawsuit was not ontvankelijk verklaard because the calculation of material losses (0.4%/day fine, penalties, etc.) had no clear legal basis.