MENU
|
|
|
| Jenis | : |
KKM
|
| Judul | : |
WANPRESTASI DALAM PERJANJIAN PEMBORONGAN PEKERJAAN
PEMBANGUNAN SISTEM INTERKONEKSI KABEL LAUT ANTARA PT PLN (PERSERO) DAN KERJASAMA OPERASI (Studi Putusan Nomor 915/Pdt.G/2023/PN Dps)
|
| Subjek | : |
Contracts
|
| Pengarang | : |
Pramudya Bagas Banuaji
|
| Pembimbing | : |
Nur Wakhid,
Anggitariani Rayi Larasati Siswanta
|
| Prodi | : |
ILMU HUKUM
|
| Tahun | : |
2025
|
| Call Number | : |
346.022 BAN w
|
| Perpustakaan | : |
Fakultas Hukum
|
| Letak | : |
1 eksemplar di Koleksi Referensi
|
|
Abstrak :
Debtors in a contracting agreement who do not fulfill their obligations can be used
as the basis for a lawsuit to the court on the basis of default. This can be seen in
Decision Number 915/Pdt.G/2023/PN Dps, where the Defendant as the contractor
did not carry out its obligation to deliver the work in the form of a marine cable
interconnection system in accordance with the Plaintiff as the contracting party.
This study aims to analyze the judge's consideration in determining default and
settlement of compensation in the work contracting agreement in decision number
915/Pdt.G/PN Dps. This research is written using normative juridical research
methods with analytical prescriptive research specifications. The data source used
is secondary data sources which are processed using the literature study method
then the data is presented in the form of narrative text and analyzed normative
qualitatively. The judge stated that the Defendant's actions were included in the act
of default, but did not explain the elements of default. The results of the analysis
show that the Defendant's actions have fulfilled the elements of default, namely the
existence of an agreement that gives birth to an obligation, the existence of an act
or attitude that does not fulfill the obligations of the obligation, and the existence
of a wrongful element. The judge only granted material compensation in the form
of a cost component of Rp61,894,938,706, did not grant immaterial compensation
of Rp100,000,000, and rejected the claim for late fees of Rp6,698,626,793. The
judge's consideration in rejecting the Plaintiff's petitum regarding the late fee of
5% of the contract value was incorrect, this is because the late fee was agreed upon
in the agreement. Based on the principle of pacta sunt servanda, the judge should
respect the substance of the agreement agreed by the parties.
Keywords: Compensation, Work contracting agreement, Default
|
Kembali
|
