KEPEMILIKAN DAN PENGUASAAN OBJEK JAMINAN FIDUSIA APABILA TERJADI SENGKETA WANPRESTASI DALAM PERJANJIAN KREDIT

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 78
Author(s):  
Dija Hedistira ◽  
' Pujiyono
Keyword(s):  
Economic Benefits ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Analysis Method ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

<p>Abstract<br />This article aims to analyze the ownership and mastery of a fiduciary collateral object, in cases that often occur today, many disputes between creditors and debtors in fiduciary collateral agreements are caused because creditors assume that with executive rights as fiduciary recipients, the fiduciary collateral object legally owned by creditors and creditors the right to take and sell fiduciary collateral objects when the debtor defaults unilaterally, as well as the debtor who considers that the fiduciary collateral object is owned by him because the object is registered on his name, so that the debtor can use the object free as  giving to a third party or selling the object of fiduciary guarantee unilaterally. the author uses a normative <br />juridical approach, and deductive analysis method based on the Civil Code and fiduciary law applicable in Indonesia, Law No. 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees. The conclusion of the discussion is the ownership of the object of the Fiduciary Guarantee is owned by the debtor in accordance with the Law, mastery of the object of collateral controlled by the debtor for economic benefits, the procedure of execution The object of Fiduciary Guarantee is carried out in accordance with the Fiduciary Guarantee Act, an alternative mediation in resolving the dispute. There needs to be clarity in the use of language in making a law, so as not to conflict with each other between Article one and the other Articles.<br />Keywords: Ownership; Mastery; Object of Fiduciary Guarantee; Debtor; Creditors.</p><p>Abstrak<br />Artikel ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis tentang kepemilikan dan penguasaan suatu objek jaminan fidusia, dalam kasus yang saat ini sering terjadi, banyak sengketa antara kreditur dan debitur dalam perjanjian jaminan fidusia disebabkan karena kreditur beranggapan bahwa dengan adanya hak eksekutorial sebagai penerima fidusia, maka objek jaminan fidusia tersebut secara sah dimiliki oleh kreditur dan kreditur berhak mengambil dan menjual objek jaminan fidusia saat debitur cidera janji<br />(wanprestasi) secara sepihak, begitupun dengan debitur yang menganggap bahwa objek jaminan fidusia tersebut dimiliki olehnya karena objek tersebut terdaftar atas namannya, sehingga debitur dapat mempergunakan objek tersebut secara bebas seperti menyerahkan kepada pihak ketiga atau menjual objek jaminan fidusia tersebut secara sepihak. penulis menggunakan pendekatan yuridis normatif, dan metode analisis deduktif yang didasarkan pada Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata<br />dan hukum jaminan fidusia yang berlaku di Indonesia, Undang-Undang No. 42 Tahun 1999 tentang Jaminan Fidusia. Kesimpulan pembahasan adalah Kepemilikan Objek Jaminan Fidusia dimiliki oleh debitur sesuai Undang-undang, penguasaan objek jaminan dikuasai debitur untuk manfaat ekonomis, prosedur eksekusi Objek Jaminan Fidusia dilakukan sesuai dengan Undang-Undang Jaminan Fidusia, alternatif secara mediasi dalam menyelesaikan sengketa yang terjadi. Perlu ada kejelasan dalam<br />penggunaan bahasa pada pembuatan suatu Undang-Undang, agar tidak saling bertentangan antar Pasal satu dengan Pasal yang lainnya. <br />Kata Kunci: Kepemilikan; Penguasaan; Objek Jaminan Fidusia; Debitur; Kreditur.</p>

Formation of Contract and Third Parties in Cambodia

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ly Tayseng
Keyword(s):  
Academic Writing ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
Contract Formation ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Formal Requirements

This chapter gives an overview of the law on contract formation and third party beneficiaries in Cambodia. Much of the discussion is tentative since the new Cambodian Civil Code only entered into force from 21 December 2011 and there is little case law and academic writing fleshing out its provisions. The Code owes much to the Japanese Civil Code of 1898 and, like the latter, does not have a requirement of consideration and seldom imposes formal requirements but there are a few statutory exceptions from the principle of freedom from form. For a binding contract, the agreement of the parties is required and the offer must be made with the intention to create a legally binding obligation and becomes effective once it reaches the offeree. The new Code explicitly provides that the parties to the contract may agree to confer a right arising under the contract upon a third party. This right accrues directly from their agreement; it is not required that the third party declare its intention to accept the right.

scholarly journals PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM BAGI KREDITUR PEMEGANG HAK TANGGUNGAN TERHADAP SENGKETA AGUNAN YANG MENGAKIBATKAN BATALNYA PERJANJIAN KREDIT

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 26
Author(s):  
Fransisca Kusuma Aryani ◽  
Gunawan Djajaputra
Keyword(s):  
Legal Protection ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
District Court ◽  
Good People ◽  
Warning Letter ◽  
The Law ◽  
Debt Repayment ◽  
Credit Agreement

The process of granting credit with the guarantee of Mortgage Rights experienced many obstacles, one of which is the cancellation of credit agreement due to a lawsuit from a third party. Examples of problems that will researchers take is a case between PT PNM as creditor and Erlinawati as a debtor. Erlinawati applied for credit to PT PNM and pledged SHM No. 1716 without her husband's agreement, Bagus Satriya. As time went by, Erlinawati could not fulfill its obligations as stipulated in the credit agreement, and then PT PNM sent a warning letter to Erlinawati. Good people who know the land and buildings of his property are used as a direct guarantee to file a lawsuit to the Blora District Court. The Blora District Court ruled that credit agreements and Deed of Mortgage Rights (APHT) are invalid and null and void. So far the legal protection for debtors who have sued from the other party on the guarantee given by the creditor has not been regulated specially in the legislation. The law only regulates bad debts and debt repayment through the execution process stipulated in the Law on Banking and Insurance Rights Act. Legal protection that creditor can use when obtaining a lawsuit from a third party is by using the general guarantees provided for in Articles 1131 and 1132 of the Civil Code.

scholarly journals Kewenangan Kepolisian Memanggil Notaris Untuk Mendapatkan Keterangan Dan Klarifikasi Terhadap Perkara Tindak Pidana

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 89-99
Author(s):  
Agus Kurniawan
Keyword(s):  
Legal Protection ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
The Other ◽  
Police Investigation ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Research Problems ◽  
The Law ◽  
Notary Public ◽  
The Right ◽  
Investigation Process

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengkaji dan perlindungan hukum hak-hak tenaga kerja yang perusahaannya diputus Pailit. Permasalahan penelitian, Pertama, Bagaimanakah Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Hak-Hak Pegawai Dalam Kepailitan Perusahaan; Kedua, Bagaimanakah Upaya Hukum Yang Dapat Dilakukan Pekerja Jika Tidak Memperoleh Hak Sebagai Kreditor Istimewa/Preference. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian hukum normatif dengan pendekatan yang bersifat kualitatif. Hasil penelitian bahwa Perlindungan hukum terhadap hak-hak karyawan dalam kepailitan perseroan adalah melindungi hak-hak dan kepentingan dari para karyawan selaku stakeholders perusahaan. Kewenangan pengadilan niaga dalam tuntutan karyawan atas upah atau uang pesangon yang tidak dibayar oleh perseroan dalam memindahkan kewenangan mutlak (absolut) dari pengadilan umum untuk memeriksa permohonan pailit. upah pekerja dalam pemenuhan adalah utang harta pailit, sebelum didistribusikan kepada kreditor biaya kepailitan harus dibayar didahulukan, termasuk kreditor separatis. This study aims to analyze the authority of the police investigation and investigation process of notaries. Research problems, First. what is the authority of the police in the process of investigating and investigating notaries. Second, how does the legal protection of notaries in the process of investigation and investigation ?. The results showed that the authority of the Police in the process of investigating and investigating Notaries after the issuance of the Law of Notary Position Number 2 of 2014 was that between the Police and Notary Public must understand about their respective authorities that have been regulated by the Law, namely if the Notary Public has a problem with the deed he made then the Police / Investigator can call the Notary public directly as a witness / suspect but on the other hand the Notary in assuming his position has the right to deny the confidentiality of his act in accordance with Article 4 Jo Article 16 Jo Article 54 Jo Law No. 2 of 2014, then based on Article 170 paragraph 1 KUHAP and Article 1909 paragraph 2 number 3e of the Civil Code in this case the Police must also understand the principle of legal presumption (Vermoedanvan Rechtmatigheid) or Presumptio lustae Causa

scholarly journals EKSEKUSI JAMINAN PERORANGAN (BORGTOCHT) DALAM PENYELESAIAN KREDIT MACET MELALUI KEPAILITAN (ANALISIS PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG RI NOMOR 2960 K/Pdt/2010)

Jurnal MINUTA ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-19
Author(s):  
Evi Retno Wati
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
The Right

Generally collateral is divided into two, namely personal guarantee (persoonlijke zekerheid) and corporeal guarantee (zakerlijke zekerheid). On Personal collateral, what given by debtor was not an object but a statement made by the third party who has no interest at all both toward debtor or creditor. In the case that was reviewed in this research to wit The supreme court of Republic of Indonesia decree No. 2960 K/Pdt/2010 PT. Pertamina Dana Ventura (first named PT. Pertamina Saving & Investment), as a creditor filed a confiscation guarantee claim toward Kairudin Nur who is the guarantor of the debt of PT. Goro Bata Sakti (in bankruptcy) as a debtor. Guarantor in Indonesian Civil Code (later stated as KUHPer) is given a privilege which is stated in article 1831 KUHPer which given right to the guarantor to reject payment to creditor before the creditor’s property confiscated first and sold in order to pay the debts. If after the debtor’s property confiscated and sold are not enough to pay the debts, then in this case the guarantor is responsible for fulfilling the debts toward creditor. In The supreme court of Republic of Indonesia decree No. 2960 K/Pdt/2010, the guarantor right as ruled in KUHPer is violated. Therefore the law protection that can be given to the guarantor is the guarantor is given the right to accelerate the management and settlement toward debtor’s assets which were under curator supervision.

scholarly journals Investigating Sanction of the Conditions in the Settlement Contract with Regard to Registration of Deeds and Real Estate

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Afsaneh Narimisa ◽  
Alireza Entezari
Keyword(s):  
Real Estate ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Legal Problem ◽  
The Third ◽  
General Rules ◽  
Settlement Agreement ◽  
The Law

Considering that Articles 47 and 48 of the Registration Law have stated that registration of the document of settlement contract is obligatory and its sanction is the non-acceptability of unofficial documents in courts and departments. However, it must be said that these articles do not declare the invalidity of normal documents absolutely, but the meaning of the non-acceptability of such documents is that they cannot be referred to in relation to third parties, while such documents are valid and authentic for the parties to the contract, and because of the fact that the document is a normal contract, the parties to the contract cannot refuse to fulfill their commitment and execute the contract by the excuse that such documents must have been registered in accordance with the law. Therefore, referring to ordinary settlement agreement, the grantee cannot claim the propriety of some property against persons other than grantor, but in the case of denial of the occurrence of a transaction between the parties to the settlement, the beneficiary can refer to the ordinary document of that transaction to prove the occurrence of the transaction between themself and the other person, and such a reference is reviewable by the court. In addition to that the grantor and grantee can refer to ordinary document and any provable evidence in their controversy and dispute about the settlement subject and prove the occurrence of settlement, the grantee can bring an action against the grantor and obligate them to arrange an official settlement document by proving the settlement and by invoking to Article 220 of the Civil Code, because according to the mentioned article, transactors are not only committed to what is stated in the contract, but are also committed to all the results of the contract in accordance with customs or law. However, if a dispute occurs between the grantee and a third party about the settlement subject and an action is brought, then if the grantee presents the ordinary settlement document to prove their ownership, the court according to the Registration Law will not consider that document effective, and the grantee may even be convicted against the third party. The settlement is not correct if its provisions arecontrary to the law, order and the general rules, and if the settlement document arranged in a notary office has a substantive, procedural or legal problem then the competent legal authorities such as the High Council of Registry investigate the issue and the provisions applicable will be issued.

Relaxations of Contractual Privity and the Need for Third Party Rights in Chinese Contract Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chen Lei
Keyword(s):  
Direct Action ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Chinese Law ◽  
The Third ◽  
Right Of Action ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
The Right

This chapter examines the position of third party beneficiaries in Chinese law. Article 64 of the Chinese Contract Law states that where a contract for the benefit of a third party is breached, the debtor is liable to the creditor. The author regards this as leaving unanswered the question of whether the thirdparty has a right of direct action against the debtor. One view regards the third party as having the right to sue for the benefit although this right was ultimately excluded from the law. Another view, supported by the Supreme People’s Court, is that Article 64 does not provide a right of action for a third party and merely prescribes performance in ‘incidental’ third party contracts. The third view is that there is a third party right of action in cases of ‘genuine’ third party contracts but courts are unlikely to recognize a third party action where the contract merely purports to confer a benefit on the third party.

Contracts for the Benefit of Third Parties in Japan

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masami Okino
Keyword(s):  
Case Analysis ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
German Model ◽  
Recent Debate ◽  
The Law

This chapter discusses the law on third party beneficiaries in Japan; mostly characterized by adherence to the German model that still bears an imprint on Japanese contract law. Thus, there is neither a doctrine of consideration nor any other justification for a general doctrine of privity, and contracts for the benefit of third parties are generally enforceable as a matter of course. Whether an enforceable right on the part of a third party is created is simply a matter of interpretation of the contract which is always made on a case-by-case analysis but there are a number of typical scenarios where the courts normally find the existence (or non-existence) of a contract for the benefit of a third party. In the recent debate on reform of Japanese contract law, wide-ranging suggestions were made for revision of the provisions on contracts for the benefit of third parties in the Japanese Civil Code. However, it turned out that reform in this area was confined to a very limited codification of established case law.

scholarly journals ABUSE OF THE RIGHT TO INITIATE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS

2020 ◽  
pp. 259-264
Author(s):  
В. В. Дутка
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Legal Entity ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Bankruptcy Procedure ◽  
Good For ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Ordinary Citizens ◽  
Legal Entities

The relevance of the article is that society’s attitude to the bankruptcy procedure is ambiguous: ordinary citizens who have never been involved in bankruptcy proceedings often perceive it as a certain negative phenomenon that should be avoided and avoided. On the other hand, for many debtors, bankruptcy becomes the “lifeline” with which they can repay their claims to creditors and start financial life “from scratch”. At the same time, it should be noted that many debtors and creditors use the bankruptcy procedure not for the purposes provided by the legislator in the relevant legal norms, but to satisfy only their own interests, to the detriment of the interests of other parties to the case. In this regard, the study of the abuse of the right to initiate bankruptcy proceedings becomes relevant. The article is devoted to the study of abuse of the right to initiate bankruptcy proceedings. The purpose of the article is to study the abuse of the right to initiate bankruptcy proceedings and highlight the author’s vision of this issue. According to the results of the study, the author concludes that the application to the debtor of bankruptcy procedures can be both good for the debtor and to the detriment of the interests of his creditors. Entities that could potentially abuse the right to initiate bankruptcy proceedings are: creditors of the debtor – a legal entity, as well as debtors – legal entities, individuals and individuals – entrepreneurs. The fact of exemption of debtors from the court fee for filing an application to initiate bankruptcy proceedings is not only an unjustified luxury for our state, but also only contributes to the abuse of the right to initiate bankruptcy proceedings by unscrupulous debtors. In order to reduce the number of cases of abuse of the right to initiate bankruptcy proceedings, the author justifies the need to complicate the conditions for opening bankruptcy proceedings, for example, by returning the conditions provided by the Law of Ukraine “On Restoration of Debtor’s Solvency or Recognition of Debtor’s Bankruptcy”.

Two-party QPC with polarization-entangled Bell states and the coherent states

2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (3&4) ◽  
pp. 236-254
Author(s):  
Xiao-Ming Xiu ◽  
Li Dong ◽  
Hong-Zhi Shen ◽  
Ya-Jun Gao ◽  
X. X. Yi
Keyword(s):  
Coherent States ◽  
Single Photon ◽  
The Other ◽  
Bell States ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Nonlinear Interactions ◽  
Analysis Method ◽  
Beam Splitters ◽  
Kerr Media ◽  
Einstein Podolsky Rosen

We propose a protocol of quantum privacy comparison with polarization-entangled Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (Bell) states and the coherent states. One of two legitimate participants, Alice, prepares polarization-entangled Bell states and keeps one photon of each photon pair and sends the other photons to the third party, Charlie. Receiving the photons, Charlie performs single-photon transformation operations on them and then sends them to the other legitimate participant, Bob. Three participants adopt parity analysis method to check the distribution security of Bell states. Exploiting polarization beam splitters and nonlinear interactions mediated by the probe coherent states in Kerr media, Alice and Bob check the parities of their photons using the bases of $\{\ket H, \ket V\}$ or $\{\ket +, \ket -\}$. On the basis of the parity analysis outcomes and Charlie's publicized information, they can analyze the security of the distributed quantum channel. Confirming secure distribution of the shared Bell states, two participants perform respective parity measurements on the privacy photons and own photons of Bell states, and then send the results to Charlie. According to information provided by two legitimate participants and his single-qubit transformation operations, Charlie compares the privacy information of Alice and Bob and publicizes the conclusion.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document