MENU
|
|
|
| Jenis | : |
KKM
|
| Judul | : |
TINJAUAN YURIDIS TERHADAP AKIBAT HUKUM WANPRESTASI DALAM PERJANJIAN KERJA SAMA (Studi Putusan Nomor 15/Pdt.G/2022/PN.Btm)
|
| Subjek | : |
Contracts
|
| Pengarang | : |
Yoel Na Burju Autarkes T
|
| Pembimbing | : |
Sulistyandari,
Nur Wakhid
|
| Prodi | : |
ILMU HUKUM
|
| Tahun | : |
2024
|
| Call Number | : |
346.022 AUT t
|
| Perpustakaan | : |
Fakultas Hukum
|
| Letak | : |
1 eksemplar di Koleksi Referensi
|
|
Abstrak :
Breach of contract is often encountered in our daily lives. One interesting
agreement to examine is the housing complex development agreement between PT.
Batama Nusa Permai and PT. Mulia Realty Batindo. In this case, PT. Batama Nusa
Permai, as the Plaintiff, sues PT. Mulia Realty Batindo, as the Defendant, with a
breach of contract claim and demands the cancellation of the agreement along with
damages. The purpose of this research is to analyze the legal consequences of breach
of contract in a cooperation agreement and the legal considerations for the judge in
rejecting the Plaintiff's claim for damages in decision number 15/Pdt.G/2022/PN.Btm.
The method used in this research is normative juridical with a legal and case
approach. The research specification is a perspective-analysis. Data is sourced from
primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, with data collection methods involving
literature study and qualitative juridical analysis.
The Panel of Judges, in their considerations, declared that PT. Mulia Realty
Batindo, as the Defendant, had committed a breach of contract by being negligent,
namely, delaying the completion of the second phase of the housing complex
development process and failing to prove the existence of a compelling circumstance
(force majeure) as claimed by the Defendant. The legal consequence of the breach of
contract by the Defendant in the Cooperation Agreement between PT. Batama Nusa
Permai and PT. Mulia Realty Batindo is the cancellation of the cooperation agreement.
PT. Mulia Realty Batindo is required to return documents belonging to the Plaintiff,
such as the Certificate of Building Rights (HGB) for phase II, and other documents
provided to the Defendant for development purposes. The judge rejected the Plaintiff's
claim for damages based on jurisprudence, specifically the Supreme Court decisions
No. 19.K/Sip/1983 and No. 556.K/Sip/1980, which essentially state that claims for
damages without specifying the losses should be rejected. This aligns with the general
principle of the burden of proof (actori incumbit probati) as regulated in Article 163
HIR/283 Rbg.
Keywords: Cooperation Contract Agreement, Breach of Contract, Contract
Termination, Compensation
|
Kembali
|
