Electronic Theses and Dissertation

Putusan nomor 2176 k/pdt/2020 antara pt. jaya real property, tbk dan dewi setyorini dalam perjanjian pembelian ruko di wilayah tangerang, mahkamah agung memutuskan bahwa kedua belah pihak melakukan wanprestasi, dikarenakan pt. jaya real property, tbk dianggap lalai dalam memberikan ppjb (perjanjian pengikatan jual beli) dan spp (surat persetujuan pembelian), serta kurang telitinya dewi setyorini dalam menandatangani ppjb dan telat membayar cicilan yang menyebabkan kerugian bagi kedua belah pihak. akan tetapi putusan pengadilan tingkat banding dan pertama berbeda dengan putusan di tingkat kasasi. tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui dan menganalisa dasar pertimbangan putusan majelis hakim pada putusan mahkamah agung nomor 2176 k/pdt/2020 dan untuk menganalisa putusan majelis hakim telah sesuai dengan tujuan hukum mewujudkan kepastian hukum. penelitian ini merupakan penelitian yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan studi kasus. data diperoleh dengan melakukan analisis terhadap bahan-bahan hukum, ketentuan perundang-undangan, dan jurnal ilmiah. hasil studi kasus ini menunjukkan bahwa dasar pertimbangan majelis hakim pada putusan mahkamah agung pada pertimbangannya telah memperhatikan fakta bahwa kedua belah pihak bersama - sama telah melakukan wanprestasi yaitu melanggar pasal 1238 kuhperdata, karena pt. jaya real property, tbk merubah objek wilayah ruko fresh market kav. blok pe/ra-16 dan dewi setyorini pun terlambat membayar cicilan. berbeda dengan putusan pengadilan negeri tangerang dan pengadilan tinggi banten yang tidak mempertimbangkan bahwa kedua belah pihak bersama-sama melakukan kelalaian. selanjutnya, pada kasus tersebut hanya putusan hakim mahkamah agung yang telah memenuhi tujuan kepastian hukum karena telah melihat aspek hukum positif yaitu perundang-undang, fakta-fakta hukum yang ada, serta fakta-fakta hukum diuraikan secara jelas sehingga menghindari kekeliruan. saran majelis hakim yang memeriksa perkara ini diharapkan memberikan putusan didasarkan pada pertimbangan yang jelas dan tidak mengabaikan fakta yang ada. selanjutnya majelis hakim yang memeriksa perkara ini diharapkan lebih memperhatikan dan menerapkan prinsip-prinsip kepastian hukum sehingga kepastian hukum terhadap seseorang dapat terjamin dan terpenuhi.

Decision Number 2176 K/Pdt/2020 between PT. Jaya Real Property, Tbk and Dewi Setyorini in the Shophouse Purchase Agreement in the Tangerang area, the Supreme Court decided that both parties had defaulted, because PT. Jaya Real Property, Tbk was considered negligent in providing the PPJB (Sales Purchase Agreement) and SPP (Purchase Approval Letter), as well as Dewi Setyorini's lack of thoroughness in signing the PPJB and being late in paying installments which caused losses for both parties. However, the decision of the Court of Appeal and First Level is different from the decision at the Cassation Level. The purpose of this research is to find out and analyze the basis for considering the decision of the Panel of Judges in the Supreme Court Decision Number 2176 K/Pdt/2020 and to analyze whether the Panel of Judges' decision is in accordance with the legal objectives of realizing legal certainty. This research is normative juridical research with a case study approach. Data was obtained by analyzing legal materials, statutory provisions and scientific journals. The results of this case study show that the basis for the Panel of Judges' considerations in the Supreme Court Decision has taken into account the fact that both parties have jointly committed a breach of contract, namely violating article 1238 of the Civil Code, because PT. Jaya Real Property, Tbk changed the object of the Ruko Fresh Market area Kav. Block PE/RA-16 and Dewi Setyorini were also late in paying the installments. This is different from the decisions of the Tangerang District Court and the Banten High Court which do not consider that both parties jointly committed negligence. Furthermore, in this case only the Supreme Court Judge's decision fulfilled the aim of legal certainty because it had looked at the positive legal aspects, namely the law, existing legal facts, and the legal facts were clearly explained so as to avoid mistakes. The advice of the Panel of Judges examining this case is that they hope to give a decision based on clear considerations and not ignore the existing facts. Furthermore, the panel of judges examining this case is expected to pay more attention to and apply the principles of legal certainty so that legal certainty for a person can be guaranteed and fulfilled.