MENU
|
|
|
| Jenis | : |
KKM
|
| Judul | : |
PENERAPAN PRINSIP IKTIKAD BAIK DALAM PERJANJIAN PENGIKATAN JUAL BELI (PPJB) DAN PENERAPAN PRINSIP KEHATI-HATIAN DALAM
PERJANJIAN PEMBEBANAN HAK TANGGUNGAN TERHADAP OBJEK PPJB
(Studi terhadap Putusan M.A.R.I No. 1837 K/Pdt/2020)
|
| Subjek | : |
Contracts
|
| Pengarang | : |
Aprilliasti Kusuma Devi
|
| Pembimbing | : |
Tri Lisiani Prihatinah,
Sulistyandari
|
| Prodi | : |
ILMU HUKUM S2
|
| Tahun | : |
2024
|
| Call Number | : |
346.022 DEV p
|
| Perpustakaan | : |
Fakultas Hukum
|
| Letak | : |
1 eksemplar di Koleksi Referensi
|
|
Abstrak :
A house is one of the basic human needs that can be owned through Sale and
Purchase Agreement (SPA). A house sale and purchase agreement can be preceded
by a Conditional Sale and Purchase Agreement (CSPA) for various reasons, for
example, the house that will become the object of sale and purchase is still under
construction, or there are other conditions that must be met for the sale and
purchase of houses and / or land. In case No. 1837 K/Pdt/2020 which has been
decided by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia, Consumer A and
Developer B entered into a CSPA. The CSPA could not be continued into SPA
because Developer B had not fulfilled its obligation to install PDAM water
connection. Developer B then used the CSPA Object as collateral for its loan
repayment to Bank Panin. The District Court, High Court and Supreme Court have
different considerations on the case so that the author will analyse regarding the
implementation of the principle of good faith of the parties in the CSPA,
implementation of the prudential principle in granting credit and encumbering the
CSPA Object and the legal implications when Developer B cannot pay off its credit
secured by the CSPA Object in case No. 1837 K/Pdt/2020.
This research uses the Normative Juridical type, with data sources in the form
of secondary data derived from primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials
with data collection techniques based on literature studies.
The implementation of the principle of good faith in the CSPA was not
considered by the Lubuk Pakam District Court and the Supreme Court, even though
this principle is very important in the implementation of the agreement. The
implementation of the principle of prudence in the credit agreement and the
encumbrance of the CSPA object, was also not considered by the Lubuk Pakam
District Court and the Supreme Court even though prudence is a very important
principle in the bank business. The application of the principle of good faith of
Consumer A and Developer B in the CSPA has been appropriately considered by
the Medan High Court which gave consideration that the CSPA was executed in
good faith and has not been completed so that it still applies as law to the parties.
The implementation of the prudential principle in the credit agreement and the
encumbrance of mortgage rights on the CSPA Object, has also been appropriately
considered by the Panel of Judges of the Medan High Court, namely Bank Panin is
considered to have violated the prudential principle because it is proven that it did
not first physically check the status of the CSPA Object pledged by Developer B.
The legal implication when Developer B cannot pay off its credit secured by the
CSPA Object, then Consumer A cannot execute SPA on the CSPA Object, Bank
Panin cannot carry out the execution auction of mortgage rights, the Developer
gets multiple benefits because they have received payment from Consumer A and
received credit facilities from Bank Panin.
Keywords: principle of good faith in an agreement, principle of prudence, credit
agreement, execution of mortgage rights.
|
Kembali
|
