MENU
|
|
|
| Jenis | : |
KKM
|
| Judul | : |
WANPRESTASI DALAM PERJANJIAN DI BAWAH TANGAN ATAS JUAL BELI HAK MILIK SATUAN RUMAH SUSUN (Studi Putusan No. 110/Pdt.G/2021/PN Yyk)
|
| Subjek | : |
Contracts
|
| Pengarang | : |
Ummi Mustika Indah Lestari
|
| Pembimbing | : |
Nur Wakhid,
Angitariani Rayi Larasati Siswanta
|
| Prodi | : |
ILMU HUKUM
|
| Tahun | : |
2024
|
| Call Number | : |
346.022 LES w
|
| Perpustakaan | : |
Fakultas Hukum
|
| Letak | : |
1 eksemplar di Koleksi Referensi
|
|
Abstrak :
Parties in the sale and purchase of houses generally make a Preliminary
Sale and Purchase Agreement (hereinafter referred to as PPJB) as a preliminary
bond due to transactions that are usually not carried out in cash due to their large
value and to avoid conflicts, such as default. This research was conducted on the
decision No. 110/Pdt.G/2021/PN Yyk which stated that the developer (defendant)
was in default in the PPJB of the Flat Unit (hereinafter referred to as sarusun)
Jogja Apartel. The purpose of this study is to analyze the validity of the PPJB so
that the consequences of the agreement can be known and analyze the judge's
consideration that declared the defendant in default of the PPJB even though the
main agreement for this sale and purchase had not yet been born.
The research method used is normative juridical research method with
descriptive analytical research specifications. The data source in this research uses
secondary data in the form of primary legal materials and secondary legal
materials with data analysis methods carried out normatively qualitative and
presented in the form of narrative text arranged systematically.
The results of the research and discussion provide the conclusion that the
PPJB of Jogja Apartel Flats is valid based on the validity of the agreement in
Article 1320 of the Indonesian Civil Code, so that the parties can proceed to the
stage of making a Sale and Purchase Deed (hereinafter AJB) so that the delivery of
the flat is carried out, but the defendant cannot complete the construction of the flat
according to the deadline written in the PPJB. The judge decided that the defendant
was in default because after being given a summons he still could not fulfill his
obligations. This resulted in the inability to make AJB, so that the plaintiff suffered
losses because he did not get the property rights to the flat he had paid for. The
default eventually resulted in the termination of the agreement accompanied by
compensation.
Keywords: Sales and Purchase Agreement, Flat Unit, Default
|
Kembali
|
