Update Artikelilmiah: 55165

ANNISA YULIA PAMUNGKAS

NIM

Judul Artikel

Abstrak (Bhs. Indonesia)

Perjanjian Utang Piutang merupakan hubungan hukum yang mengikat para pihak untuk memenuhi prestasi sesuai dengan kesepakatan. Tidak terpenuhinya prestasi oleh debitur dapat menyebabkan wanprestasi yang berakibat pada tuntutan ganti rugi. Salah satu sengketa yang timbul akibat tidak terpenuhinya prestasi dalam perjanjian ada pada Perjanjian Utang Piutang Bungkil Sawit antara PT Farasha Agro Raya sebagai Penggugat dan PT Awra Pangan Mandiri sebagai Tergugat. Sengketa berawal dari Perjanjian pembelian Bungkil Sawit yang kemudian melahirkan Perjanjian Utang Piutang karena Tergugat tidak memenuhi kewajiban pembayaran. Meskipun telah diberikan somasi, kewajiban tersebut tetap tidak dipenuhi sehingga Penggugat mengajukan gugatan wanprestasi ke Pengadilan Negeri Cikarang dan diputus dalam Putusan Nomor 25/Pdt.G/2024/PN Ckr. Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis pertimbangan hakim dalam menetapkan unsur-unsur wanprestasi dan ganti rugi akibat wanprestasi pada Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Cikarang Nomor 25/Pdt.G/2024/PN Ckr. Analisis tersebut menggunakan teori hukum perjanjian, teori wanprestasi, dan teori akibat hukum. Metode yang digunakan adalah yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, konseptual, dan pendekatan kasus, menggunakan data sekunder yang diperoleh melalui studi kepustakaan dan dianalisis secara normatif kualitatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa hakim telah tepat menyatakan Tergugat melakukan wanprestasi karena terdapat perikatan yang lahir dari perjanjian Utang Piutang 1 dan 2 antara Penggugat dan Tergugat yang menimbulkan kewajiban bagi Tergugat untuk melakukan pembayaran utang dan tidak memenuhi kewajiban meskipun telah diberikan somasi. Hakim juga tepat mengabulkan ganti rugi materiil berupa pemenuhan kewajiban pembayaran, dan menolak ganti rugi imateriil karena tidak dapat dibuktikan. Penulis sependapat dengan pertimbangan hakim tersebut, namun masih terdapat kekurangan dalam penguraian alasan terpenuhinya unsur-unsur wanprestasi serta dasar pemberian ganti rugi materiil dan penolakan ganti rugi immateriil. Putusan tersebut mencerminkan penerapan asas pacta sunt servanda, kepastian hukum, dan perlindungan terhadap hak kreditur dalam penyelesaian sengketa wanprestasi.

Abtrak (Bhs. Inggris)

A Debt and Credit Agreement is a legal relationship that binds the parties to fulfill their obligations in accordance with the agreement. Failure by the debtor to fulfill these obligations may result in a breach of contract which may lead to a claim for compensation. One such dispute arising from a failure to fulfill obligations under an agreement involves the Palm Kernel Debt Agreement between PT Farasha Agro Raya as the Plaintiff and PT Awra Pangan Mandiri as the Defendant. The Dispute originated from a Palm Kernel Purchase Agreement, which subsequently gave rise to the Debt Agreement because the Defendant failed to meet its payment obligations. Despite being served with formal notice the Defendant still failed to fulfill its obligations, prompting the Plaintiff to file a breach of contract lawsuit with the Cikarang District Court, which was decided in Judgment No. 25/Pdt.G/2024/PN Ckr. This study aims to analyze the judge’s considerations in determining the elements of breach of contract and compensation resulting from breach of contract in Cikarang District Court Decision N0. 25/Pdt.G/2024/Pn Ckr. The analysis draws on contract law theory, breach of contract theory, and the theory of legal consequence. The method used is a normative legal approach combining statutory approach, conceptual approach, and case approach., utilizing secondary data obtained through a literature review and analyzed using normative qualitative approach. The result of the study indicate that the judge was correct in ruling that the Defendant was in breach of contract because there was a contractual relationship arising from Debt Agreement 1 and 2 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, which imposed an obligation despite having been served with formal notice. The Judge was also correct in awarding compensatory compensation in the form of fulfilment of the payment obligation and denying compensatory compensation for non-pecunary harm because they could not be proven. The author agrees with the judge’s reasoning; however, there are still shortcomings in the explanation of the fulfilment of the elements of breach of contract, as well as the basis for awarding material compensation and denying immaterial compensation. This decision reflects the application of the principle of pacta sunt servanda, legal certainty, and the protection of creditors’ rights in the resolution of breach of contract disputes.

Kata kunci

Pembimbing 1

Pembimbing 2

Pembimbing 3

Tahun

Jumlah Halaman