Perlindungаn Hukum bаgi Debitur Penerimа Kredit Usаhа Rаkyаt yаng Wаnprestаsi Kаrenа Overmаcht pаdа Perjаnjiаn Kredit Bаnk

The ship insurance agreement was prone to causing problems because the parties were in different jurisdictions, such as in the dispute over the PT. Purna Arthanugraha Insurance (PT. ASPAN) with PT. Indonesian Maritime Business Development (PT. Bumi Shipmanagement). The insurance policy agreement, in this case, was subject to and complied with English law, but the settlement of the case was filed in a court in Indonesia. This case became a legal problem in determining the choice of law arrangement and forum for resolving disputes. Based on these problems, this study aimed to analyze the regulation over the choice of law clause and the choice of forum in the ship insurance agreement. The approach used in this study was a case study approach and a statutory approach. The type of research used in this study was normative juridical, the data analysis technique used descriptive, interpretation, evaluation and argumentation techniques. The study results showed that the choice of law clause in the ship insurance agreement based on the agreement of the two parties referred to the applicable law in England, namely the Marine Insurance Act 1906. The setting of the forum choice clause in the ship insurance agreement was not regulated strictly and explicitly, so the dispute was submitted by one of the parties to the district court based on civil procedural law. Settlement of ship insurance agreement disputes through a lawsuit to the district court was not ideal because the district court's scope was limited to civil cases of a general nature.

Section: Hasil Dan Pembahasan Pengaturan Klausul Pilihan Hukum Dalam ...unclassified

Pengaturan Klausul Pilihan Hukum dan Pilihan Forum dalam Perjanjian Asuransi Kapal di Indonesia

Firmansyah¹,

Sihabudin²,

Sudirman³

2022

“…Fasilitas KPR yang diberikan bank kepada debitur pasti mempunyai risiko gagal bayar. Risiko gagal bayar diantisipasi oleh bank dengan melakukan pengikatan jaminan pada seluruh fasilitas KPR yang diberikan (Nova, Suhariningsih, & Sugiri, 2020). Pasal 8 ayat (1) Undang-Undang Nomor 10 Tahun 1998 tentang Perbankan menjelaskan bahwa jaminan merupakan kunci untuk meminimalisir risiko dalam pemberian fasilitas kredit.…”

Section: Pendahuluanunclassified

Status Hukum Perjanjian Beli Kembali (Buy-Back Guarantee) yang Diberikan oleh Developer Pailit kepada Bank

Tyas

Sukarmi

Audrey

2022

This study analyzed the contract disputes in the Supreme Court Decision Number 1013K/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2016 and the legal status of the buy-back guarantee agreement obtained from the bankrupt developer. This study used a normative juridical method with a statutory approach and a conceptual approach. The contract dispute in the Supreme Court Decision Number 1013K/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2016 related to submitting several claims based on the buy-back guarantee agreement between PT. Bank Mandiri (Persero) Tbk. as a creditor with PT. Rizky Jaya Sentosa Ladang was the developer who was declared bankrupt when the debtor defaulted. The legal status of the buy-back guarantee agreement obtained by the bank from the bankrupt developer remained binding on the parties who have agreed. The contents of the buy-back guarantee agreement remained valid as law for the parties because one of the bankrupt parties was not included in the conditions for the termination of engagements and agreements.

“…Pasal ini menjelaskan tanggung jawab pelaku usaha dalam memberikan informasi yang sebenarnya mengenai toko online miliknya, serta informasi terkait pencantuman klausul baku untuk menghindari terjadinya wanprestasi antara pihak konsumen dan pelaku usaha (Setyawati, Ali, & Rasyid, 2020). Wanprestasi merupakan akibat dari tidak terpenuhinya kewajiban dalam suatu perjanjian (Nova, Suhariningsih, & Sugiri, 2020). Transaksi e-commerce harus dilaksanakan secara jelas agar tidak menimbulkan kerugian bagi salah satu pihak Perlindungan bagi konsumen dijelaskan dalam Pasal 1 angka 1 Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1999 tentang Perlindungan Konsumen (UU Nomor 8 Tahun 1999), yaitu segala upaya yang menjamin adanya kepastian hukum untuk memberi perlindungan kepada konsumen.…”

Section: Pendahuluanunclassified

“…Prestasi yang dimaksud dapat disamakan dengan istilah pelaksanaan janji, sedangkan janji yang tidak dilaksanakan disebut wanprestasi (Suhamoko, 2004). Wanprestasi dapat terjadi karena faktor keadaan memaksa (overmacht), yang membuat sistem berjalan diluar kendali (Nova, Suhariningsih, & Sugiri, 2020). Wanprestasi dalam suatu perjanjian memiliki makna bahwa perjanjian tersebut tidak dapat dilaksanakan sebagaimana mestinya, baik karena unsur kesengajaan, kelalaian, atau keharusan karena keadaan.…”

Section: Hasilunclassified

Batasan Makna Frasa Kesalahan Teknis dalam Pasal 57 Ayat (2) Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 80 Tahun 2019 terhadap Keabsahan Kontrak Elektronik

Rahayu

Dewantara

Syafi’i

2021

This study aimed to analyze the limits of the meaning of the technical error phrase in Article 57 paragraph (2) of Government Regulation Number 80 of 2019 on the validity of electronic contracts and analyze legal protection for business actors, system makers, and recipients of goods/services related to the phrase technical error in Article 57 paragraph (2) Government Regulation Number 80 of 2019. This study used a normative juridical method with a statutory and analytical approach. The results showed that the technical error phrase in Article 57 paragraph (2) of Government Regulation Number 80 of 2019 contained the meaning of default, resulting in the electronic contract being null and void. Legal protection for business actors was included in Article 6 of Law Number 8 of 1999, in the form of guarantees for self-defense when a dispute occurred due to consumers who had bad intentions. Article 12 of Law Number 19 of 2002 explicitly explained that computer programs were one of the protected copyrighted works. It was legal protection for system makers. Legal protection for recipients of goods/services was contained in Article 46 of Law Number 8 of 1999, in the form of guarantees of justice related to the quality of the product received.