Volume 07 Issue 12 December 2024
1Jenni Fertanauli Saragih, 2Suraji, 3Anjar Sri Ciptorukmi Nugraheni
1Master of Notary Student at the Faculty of Law, Sebelas Maret University, Surakarta.
2,3Lecturer of the Faculty of Law, Sebelas Maret University, Surakarta.
DOI : https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v7-i12-80Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT:
A debt agreement is a form of agreement commonly found in financial transactions, but often discusses issues related to its implementation and legal consequences. One form of problem that often arises is when a debt agreement is formulated in the form of a sale and purchase agreement, which does not reflect the substantial reality of the transaction that occurs. This can cause legal pollution, especially when the nominal value recorded in the agreement is much larger than the amount of debt actually received by the debtor. This case often shows a discrepancy between the purpose of the agreement and its actual implementation, which can ultimately harm one of the parties. This paper aims to analyze the legal consequences arising from a debt agreement formulated into a sale and purchase agreement, focusing on the aspects of justice and the legal validity of the agreement. In this study, it will be discussed how a sale and purchase agreement that does not reflect a real transaction can potentially reveal the principle of justice and harm the parties involved, as well as enforce the law caused by the discrepancy between the contents of the agreement and the reality that occurs. This research is expected to provide an understanding of the importance of transparency, fairness, and compliance with applicable legal principles in the principles of drafting and implementing debt agreements formulated into sales and purchase agreements.
KEYWORDS:Debt Agreements, Sales and Purchase Agreements, Legal Consequences, Legal Certainty
REFERENCES1) Abdul, Rohadi, dan Badriyah, Siti Malikhatun. 2022. Serba-Serbi Memahami Hukum Perjanjian di Indonesia. Yogyakarta: Deepublish
2) Amran.2019. Eksekusi Jaminan Dalam Penyelesaian Sengketa Ekonomi Syariah. Indonesia: Kencana.
3) Aprinelita. “Analisis Yuridis Wanprestasi Dalam Perjanjian Utang Piutang Berdasarkan Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata (Studi Putusan Nomor 12/Pdt.G/2019/PN TLK)”. Jurnal KODIFIKASI, Vol.3 No.1, 2021.
4) Bandem, I Wayan, I Wayan Wisadnya dan Mordan Timoteus. “Akibat Hukum Perbuatan Wanprestasi Dalam Perjanjian Hutang-Piutang”. Jurnal Raad Kertha, Vol. 03 No. 01, 2020.
5) Dewitasari, Yulia dan Cakabawa, Putu Tuni. “Akibat Hukum Terhadap Para Pihak Dalam Perjanjian Apabila Terjadi Pembatalan Perjanjian”.E-Jurnal Universitas Udayana, 2011.
6) Ginanti, Wan Megasari. “Pelaksanaan Pinjam Meminjam Uang Antara Debitur Dengan PT. Federal Internasional Finance Cabang Pontianak”. Jurnal Gloria Yuris Hukum Untan. Vol. 3 No. 4, 2015.
7) Gumantri, Retna.” Syarat Sahnya Perjanjian (Ditinjau Dari KUH Perdata)”. Jurnal Pelangi Ilmu Vol. 05 No. 01 , 2012.
8) Nurdianto, Fauzan Thariw. “Pembayaran Ganti Rugi Oleh Debitur Kepada Kreditur Akibat Wanprestasi Dalam Perjanjian Berdasarkan Pasal 1236 KUH Perdata”. Jurnal Lex Et Societatis, Vol. 6 No. 7, 2018
9) Paendong, Kristiane dan Taunaumang, Herts. Jurnal Kajian Yuridis Wanprestasi Dalam Perikatan Dan Perjanjian Ditinjau Dari Hukum Perdata, Jurnal Lex Privatum, Vol. 10 No.3, 2022
10) Peter Mahmud Marzuki.2014. Penelitian Hukum (edisi Revisi). Jakarta:Kencana.
11) Satrio, J. 2014.Wanprestasi menurut KuhPerdata, Doktrin, dan Yurisprudensi, Bandung: PT Citra Aditya Bakti.
