ANALISIS HUKUM TERHADAP SENGKETA JUAL BELI RUKO (STUDI KASUS PUTUSAN NO. 9/PDT.G/2019/PN.Mam)

LEGAL ANALYSIS OF DISPUTES ON SHOP BUYING (CASE STUDY OF DECISION NO. 9/PDT.G/2019/PN.Mam)

Authors

  • Reskyta May Alvitra Students of the Faculty of Law, University of Bosowa
  • Hamzah Taba Bosowa University Faculty of Law
  • Juliati Bosowa University Faculty of Law

Keywords:

Agreement, Borrowing and Loan, Sale and Purchase, Shophouse

Abstract

Thisaresearch aims toadetermine and analyzeathe position of the shophouse sale and purchase agreement based on the loan agreement.  As well as the reasons for the judge's consideration of buying and selling shophouses based on a loan agreement. This research uses normative legal methods or doctrinal legal research.  This research is a type of legal research using secondary data or library research.

 This research was conducted at the Mamuju District Court.  The source of this research data comes from primary data obtained from interviews with Judge Decision No.  9/PDT.G/2019/PN.Mam.  Secondary data obtained by reviewing and looking for references, articles, legislation, and other sources related to the object under study.

 The results of this study indicate that the loan agreement and the sale and purchase agreement, in this case, are two different things but though they are related namely a loan agreement which is followed up with a sale and purchase agreement uppreviously there has been a criminal acts of fraud reporting by the Plaintiff allegedly committed by Defendant II, because the shophouse which was the object of the sale and purchase agreement that should have been owned by Plaintiff was blocked by Defendant I and Defendant III who based their statement acknowledged that he was the owner of the shophouse based on the Deed of Grant from Defendant II. The Judge's consideration in deciding the sale and purchase dispute is basically about the Control Against the Rights of 1 (one) building/shophouse unit carried out by the Defendants. The problem arose because Plaintiff was prevented from using the shophouse, because Defendant I admitted that the shophouse belonged to him based on the Deed of Grant. The Deed of Grant was made after the Sale and Purchase of shophouse was executed. In addition, the Deed of Grant which became the basis for the control of the shophouse was denied by Defendant II because the making of the Deed of Grant at the time it was signed was a blank.  Thus, the Judge decided which stated that Plaintiff was the owner of the shophouse and the control of the shophouse by Defendant I and Defendant III was against the law.

References

Hamid, A. H., & SH, M. (2017). Hukum Perlindungan Konsumen Indonesia (Vol. 1). SAH MEDIA.

Badrulzaman, Mariam Darus. 1983. Perjanjian Kredit Bank. Bandung: Alumni.

Fuady, Munir. 2001. Hukum Perjanjian dari Sudut Pandang Hukum Bisnis. Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakri.

H.S, Salim. 2011. Hukum Kontrak Teori dan Teknik Penyusunan Kontrak. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.

Hadisoeprapto, Hartono. 1984. Pokok-Pokok Hukum Perikatan dan Hukum Jaminan. Yogyakarta: Liberty.

Harahap, M. Yahya. 1986. Segi-Segi Hukum Perjanjian. Bandung: Alumni.

Hay, Marhainis Abdul. 1986. Hukum Perdata. Jakarta: UPN Veteran. 1984. Hukum Perbankan Indonesia. Jakarta: Pradnya Paramita.

Kamsilaniah; Abbas, Nurhayati; Patittingi, Farida; Miru, Ahmadi. (2018). The Existence of Stage House as Fiduciary Guarantee: Perspective of Horizontal Separation Principle. JL Pol'y & Globalization, 75, 116.

Komariah. 2010. Hukum Perdata. Malang: UMM Press.

Isnaad, A. P., & Jafar, J. (2021). Penyelesaian Pembiayaan Bermasalah Dengan Jaminan Fidusia Pada Bank Pembiayaan Rakyat Syariah Dana Moneter: Completion Of Problem Financing With Fidusian Guarantee In BprS. CLAVIA: Journal of Law, 19(1), 61-74.

Mas, Marwan. "Pengantar ilmu hukum." (2013).

Mahdi, Sri Soesilowati, Surini Ahlan Sjarif, Akhmad Budi Cahyono.2005. Hukum Perdata Suatu Pengantar. Jakarta: Gitama Jaya.

Miru, Ahmadi. 2011. Hukum Kontrak & Perancangan Kontrak. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo.

. 2015. Hukum Perdata: Materiil dan Formil. USAID.

dan Sakka Pati. 2013. Hukum Perikatan: Penjelasan Makna Pasal 1233 Sampai 1456 BW. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada.

Muhammad, Abdulkadir. 2014. Hukum Perjanjian. Bandung: Citra Aditya Abadi.

. 2000. Hukum Perdata Indonesia. Bandung: Citra Afitya Bakti.

Mustafa, Bachsan. 2003. Sistem Hukum Indonesia Terpadu. Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti.

Naja, H.R. Daeng. 2006. Seri Keterampilan Merancang Kontrak Bisnis. Bandung: Citra Aditya.

Prodjodikoro, R. Wirjono. 1989. Asas-Asas Hukum Perjanjian. Jakarta: Sumur bandung.

R.M. Suryodiningrat. 1996. Perikatan-Perikatan Bersumber Perjanjian. Bandung: Tarsito.

Setiawan R. 1979. Pokok- Pokok Hukum Perikatan. Bandung: Bina Cipta.

Simajuntak, P.N.H. 2015. Hukum Perdata Indonesia. Jakarta: Kencana.

Soimin, Sudaryo. 1994. Status Hak dan Pembebasan Tanah. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.

Subekti, R. 1982. Aneka Perjanjian. Bandung: Alumni..

____________1994. Hukum Perjanjian. Jakarta: Intermassa.

___________1987. Pokok-Pokok Hukum Perdata. Jakarta: Intermassa.

Suharnoko, Endang Hartati.2008. Doktrin Subrogasi Novasi dan Cassies. Jakarta: Kencana Media Group dan Penerbit FH UI.

Suryodiningrat, R.M. 1996. Perikatan-Perikatan Bersumber Perjanjin. Bandung: Tarsito.

Syarifuddin, Muhammad. 2012. Hukum Perjanjian, Memahami Perjanjian dalam Prespektif Filsafat, Teori, Dogmatik, dan Praktik Hukum. Bandung: Maju.

Widjaya, I.G. Rai. 2007. Merancang Suatu Kontrak Contract Drafting Teori dan Praktik. Jakarta: Kesaint Blanc.

Wirjono Projodikoro.1991. Hukum Perdata Tentang Persetujuan-persetujuan .Tertentu. Bandung: Sumur. Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum perdata.

Shobirin.2015. Jual Beli Dalam Pandangan Islam. Jurnal Bisnis dan manajemen Islam, https://journal.iainkudus.ac.id, Vol.3 No.2.

184-191

Downloads

Published

2021-07-30