MENU
|
|
|
| Jenis | : |
KKM
|
| Judul | : |
TINJAUAN YURIDIS TERHADAP WANPRESTASI DALAM PERJANJIAN
PEMBIAYAAN MULTIGUNA (Studi Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Nomor 1380/Pdt.G/2023/PN.Tng)
|
| Subjek | : |
Contracts
|
| Pengarang | : |
Muhammad Naufal Syarifuddin
|
| Pembimbing | : |
Nur Wakhid,
Anggitariani Rayi Larasati Siswanta
|
| Prodi | : |
ILMU HUKUM
|
| Tahun | : |
2024
|
| Call Number | : |
346.022 SYA t
|
| Perpustakaan | : |
Fakultas Hukum
|
| Letak | : |
1 eksemplar di Koleksi Referensi
|
|
Abstrak :
This research is motivated by the act of default on the Multipurpose Financing Agreement
Number 85437161811, dated August 15, 2018 committed by PT Clipan Finance Indonesia Tbk
as the Plaintiff with Sodikin as the Defendant. This study aims to determine and analyze the
legal considerations of judges in determining the elements of the defendant's default and to
determine and analyze the legal consequences for the parties to the default of the Multipurpose
Financing Agreement in the Tangerang District Court Decision Number
1380/Pdt.G/2023/PN.Tng. This research uses a normative juridical research method with
prescriptive research specifications. Data is sourced from secondary data. The data collection
method is done by literature study, using qualitative normative data analysis method.
Based on the results of research and discussion, it can be concluded that the elements of
default in the decision of the Tangerang District Court have been fulfilled, namely the first with
the existence of an obligation arising from the Multipurpose Financing Agreement. The second
element is that the debtor does not perform where the defendant as the debtor does not carry
out his performance at all because there is no realization to pay installments. The third element,
namely the existence of fault, can be proven from the Defendant still not carrying out its
obligations by not providing an answer to the letter given by the plaintiff. The legal
consequences of default on the debtor are decided to pay the cost of repaying the multipurpose
financing agreement, paying moratoir interest and paying court costs. In the results of this
study, the Panel of Judges of the Tangerang District Court was correct in considering and
deciding that the debtor was in default, but in its consideration it did not explicitly provide an
explanation related to the elements of default and the Multipurpose Financing Agreement.
Keyword: Default, Financing Agrement, Legal Consequences
|
Kembali
|
