Airin Gondokusumo (2020) Klausula Cidera Janji Dalam Perjanjian Pembiayaan Konsumen Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019. Thesis thesis, UNIVERSITAS AIRLANGGA.

	Text (HALAMAN JUDUL) 1. HALAMAN JUDUL.pdf Download (83kB)
	Text (ABSTRAK) 2. ABSTRAK.pdf Download (33kB)
	Text (DAFTAR ISI) 3. DAFTAR ISI.pdf Download (34kB)
	Text (BAB I) 4. BAB I PENDAHULUAN.pdf Download (57kB)
	Text (BAB II) 5. BAB II RATIO DECIDENDI PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI.....................pdf Restricted to Registered users only until 21 January 2024. Download (103kB) | Request a copy
	Text (BAB III) 6. BAB III URGENSI PENCANTUMAN KLAUSULA CIDERA JANJI.....................pdf Restricted to Registered users only until 21 January 2024. Download (89kB) | Request a copy
	Text (BAB IV) 7. BAB IV PENUTUP.pdf Restricted to Registered users only until 21 January 2024. Download (30kB) | Request a copy
	Text (DAFTAR BACAAN) 8. DAFTAR BACAAN.pdf Download (42kB)
	Text (LAMPIRAN) 9. LAMPIRAN.pdf Restricted to Registered users only until 21 January 2024. Download (1MB) | Request a copy
	Text (PERNYATAAN KESEDIAAN PUBLIKASI) 10. PERNYATAAN KESEDIAAN PUBLIKASI.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (393kB) | Request a copy

Abstract

The Constitutional Court’s verdict number 18/PUU-XVII/2019 decides whereby when a fiduciary security has no agreement concerning defaults and the debtor objects to the execution of the fiduciary security, all mechanisms and procedures in executing the fiduciary security must be equal to the execution of a final and binding court ruling. From the post Constitutional Court’s decision number 18/PUU-XVII/2019, it can be concluded that the execution of the fiduciary security called “parate executie” can still be applied as long as there is an agreement concerning defaults and the debtor is voluntary in surrendering the fiduciary security. There are two problem of statements on this research. First, the ratio decidendi of Court Constitutional’s decision which decide that the event of default must be agreed between the creditor and the debtor. Second, the urgency of putting breach of contract’s clause in consumer financing agreement after Court Constitutional’s decision. This research uses statute approach, conceptual approach and case approach. This legal research results that the ratio decidendi of Court Constitutional’s verdict are based on two reasons. First, Fiduciary Security Law did not determine when a contract is being breached (event of default). Second, the event of default was mostly determined unilaterally by the creditor. However, the Court’s Ratio Decidendi is slightly improper when it comes to urging an agreement concerning defaults among creditors and debtors. Breach of contract occours by violating any of the agreed-upon terms and conditions in agreement/contract. In addition to that, by putting breach of contract’s clause in the Consumer Financing Agreement post the Court Constitutional Verdict, it will realize legal certainty. It’s essential to ensure that the consumer finance agreement provides a proper clause about event of default as a preventive way.

Actions (login required)

View Item