Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai perbuatan penyalahgunaan keadaan misbruik van omstandigheden yang dapat mengakibatkan pembatalan perjanjian. Perjanjian kredit yang terjadi antara PT PDRH dengan Bank BNI mengandung perbuatan penyalahgunaan keadaan yang dilakukan oleh Bank BNI.Permasalahan ekonomi pada tahun 1998 menjadi penyebab utama terjadinya penyalahgunaan tersebut, dimana berdasarkan kebijakan pemerintah pelunasan kredit macet harus diserahkan kepada BPPN. Kebijakan tersebut memberikan kewenangan kepada BPPN untuk memberikan pengurangan hutang pokok, pengurangan bunga maupun penghapusan denda, penghapusan kelebihan nilai kurs dan lain-lain sebagaimana yang diperoleh oleh nasabah lain. Majelis Hakim dan Mahkamah Agung menetapkan Bank BNI telah terbukti melakukan perbuatan penyalahgunaan keadaan misbruik van ostandigheden. Hal ini mengakibatkan perjanjian kredit yang dibuat oleh Bank BNI menjadi batal demi hukum. PT PDRH hanya perlu membayar sisa hutang dari pinjaman kredit tersebut tanpa dibebani bunga pembayaran.

---

This thesis is focuses its discussion on abuse of circumtances misbruik van omstandigheden that can cause cancellation of agreement. Credit agrrement beetwen PT PDRH with Bank BNI contains abuse of cirumtances which is conducte by Bank BNI it self. The economic problem at 1998 became the main cause of such abuse, where under the governments policy, the repayment of bad debts must be submited to BPPN. The policy garants the authority to BPPN to provide reduction of principal debts, interest the deductions adnd write offs, the elemination of exchange rates, obtained by the others customers. Panel of Judges and The Supreme Court have determined Bank BNI had been proven to commit the abuse of circumtances misbruik van omstandigheden. This resulte in the credit agreement made by the bank to be null and void. PT PDRH only need to pay the remaining debt of the loan without the burden of fines."

"[Itikad tidak baik merupakan salah satu dasar untuk membatalkan pendaftaran suatu merek. Pada sengketa merek yang memiliki persamaan dengan merek terkenal, itikad tidak baik seringkali dianggap ada. Pertanyaan pokok yang hendak dijawab dalam tulisan ini adalah apakah pemilik merek terdaftar yang mereknya memiliki persamaan dengan merek terkenal dapat selalu dianggap memiliki itikad tidak baik dalam mendaftarkan dan menggunakan mereknya. Tulisan ini menganalisis berbagai sengketa merek terkenal dalam putusan pengadilan. Kesimpulan yang diperoleh dari tulisan ini adalah bahwa pemilik merek terdaftar yang mereknya memiliki persamaan dengan merek terkenal tidak dapat selalu dianggap memiliki itikad tidak baik, karena terdapat beberapa faktor yang dapat dipertimbangkan dalam membuktikan adanya tidaknya itikad tidak baik dari suatu pihak.

---

Bad faith is one of the reasons to cancel an application of a trademark. In trademark disputes, when having similarities with a well-known mark, judges often assume that the trademark owner always has bad faith. The legal issue in this article is whether a trademark owner that it?s trademark has similarities with a well-known mark always has bad faith in filing and using it?s trademark. This article will analyze well-known mark cases from court rulings. This article concludes that bad faith doesn?t always exist when a trademark has similarities with a well-known mark, because there are some conditions that could be considered to prove that a party does not have bad faith.

;Bad faith is one of the reasons to cancel an application of a trademark. In trademark disputes, when having similarities with a well-known mark, judges often assume that the trademark owner always has bad faith. The legal issue in this article is whether a trademark owner that it’s trademark has similarities with a well-known mark always has bad faith in filing and using it’s trademark. This article will analyze well-known mark cases from court rulings. This article concludes that bad faith doesn’t always exist when a trademark has similarities with a well-known mark, because there are some conditions that could be considered to prove that a party does not have bad faith.

, Bad faith is one of the reasons to cancel an application of a trademark. In trademark disputes, when having similarities with a well-known mark, judges often assume that the trademark owner always has bad faith. The legal issue in this article is whether a trademark owner that it’s trademark has similarities with a well-known mark always has bad faith in filing and using it’s trademark. This article will analyze well-known mark cases from court rulings. This article concludes that bad faith doesn’t always exist when a trademark has similarities with a well-known mark, because there are some conditions that could be considered to prove that a party does not have bad faith.

]"

"[ABSTRAKTesis ini meneliti dan mengkaji pembatalan perjanjian secara sepihak yang dilakukan dengan tidak berdasarkan pada itikad baik. Itikad baik adalah salah satu asas klasik dalam hukum perjanjian yang terkandung pula dalam Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata. Asas itikad baik harus diterapkan sejak tahap prakontraktual sampai dengan pascakontraktual. Di dalam tahap prakontraktual, kedua belah pihak memiliki kewajiban untuk menjelaskan dan meneliti fakta material yang terkait dengan pembuatan perjanjian. Dalam hal suatu ketiadaan itikad baik pada tahap pembuatan perjanjian telah membawa para pihaknya dalam suatu hubungan kontraktual yang diikat dengan perjanjian, maka jelas bahwa dikemudian hari perjanjian tersebut senantiasa dapat dibatalkan. Kecakapan bertindak seseorang dalam suatu perjanjian adalah hal yang harus diteliti sebelum ditandatanganinya suatu perjanjian. Tipe penelitian yang digunakan adalah yuridis normatif yaitu penelitian hukum yang mengacu kepada kaidah-kaidah atau norma-norma hukum yang terdapat dalam peraturan perundang-undangan. Pelanggaran asas itikad baik dalam tahap pembuatan perjanjian menjadi suatu hal yang sulit untuk dibuktikan, oleh karena itu dibutuhkan suatu peraturan yang tegas untuk mewajibkan pihak-pihak dalam perjanjian untuk menjelaskan dan meneliti fakta material yang terkait dengan perjanjian. Hal ini dimaksudkan agar terpenuhinya syarat sah perjanjian sebagaimana diatur dalam pasal 1320 KUHPerdata. Pemutusan perjanjian secara sepihak yang memenuhi unsur perbuatan melawan hukum diharapkan dapat menciptakan kekonsistenan hakim dalam menerapkan hukum. Hal ini agar tercipta kejelasan dan kepastian hukum bagi para pihak yang terlibat dalam suatu perjanjian agar selalu beritikad baik dalam menjalankan suatu perjanjian baik dalam tahap prakontrak, pelaksanaan kontrak maupun pascakontrak.

---

ABSTRACTThis thesis examines and assesses unilateral termination of the agreement which is not based on good faith. Good faith is one of the classic principles of contract law also contained in Indonesian Civil Code. The principle of good faith should be applied since pre-contractual phase until post-contractual. In the pre-contractual phase, both parties have an obligation to explain and examine the material facts related to the making of the agreement. In the case of an absence of good faith in the pre-contractual phase has brought the party in an contractual relationship which bound to the agreement, then obviously that the agreement in the future can always be canceled. The ability of a person in an agreement is something that should be examined before signing of the agreement. This type of research is normative juridical, which refers to the rules or norms of law contained in regulations. Violation of the principle of good faith in the process of making the agreement becomes a difficult thing to prove, and therefore required a strict regulation to require the parties to the agreement to explain and examine the material facts relating to the agreement. This meant that the conditions are met the legitimate agreement as provided for in article 1320 of the Indonesian Civil Code. Unilateral termination of the agreement which meets the elements of the tort is expected to create the consistency of judges in applying the law. It is to create the clarity and legal certainty for the parties involved in an agreement to always have a good faith in carrying out an agreement in the pre- contract phase, contractual phase and post-contract phase.;This thesis examines and assesses unilateral termination of the agreement which is not based on good faith. Good faith is one of the classic principles of contract law also contained in Indonesian Civil Code. The principle of good faith should be applied since pre-contractual phase until post-contractual. In the pre-contractual phase, both parties have an obligation to explain and examine the material facts related to the making of the agreement. In the case of an absence of good faith in the pre-contractual phase has brought the party in an contractual relationship which bound to the agreement, then obviously that the agreement in the future can always be canceled. The ability of a person in an agreement is something that should be examined before signing of the agreement. This type of research is normative juridical, which refers to the rules or norms of law contained in regulations. Violation of the principle of good faith in the process of making the agreement becomes a difficult thing to prove, and therefore required a strict regulation to require the parties to the agreement to explain and examine the material facts relating to the agreement. This meant that the conditions are met the legitimate agreement as provided for in article 1320 of the Indonesian Civil Code. Unilateral termination of the agreement which meets the elements of the tort is expected to create the consistency of judges in applying the law. It is to create the clarity and legal certainty for the parties involved in an agreement to always have a good faith in carrying out an agreement in the pre- contract phase, contractual phase and post-contract phase.;This thesis examines and assesses unilateral termination of the agreement which is not based on good faith. Good faith is one of the classic principles of contract law also contained in Indonesian Civil Code. The principle of good faith should be applied since pre-contractual phase until post-contractual. In the pre-contractual phase, both parties have an obligation to explain and examine the material facts related to the making of the agreement. In the case of an absence of good faith in the pre-contractual phase has brought the party in an contractual relationship which bound to the agreement, then obviously that the agreement in the future can always be canceled. The ability of a person in an agreement is something that should be examined before signing of the agreement. This type of research is normative juridical, which refers to the rules or norms of law contained in regulations. Violation of the principle of good faith in the process of making the agreement becomes a difficult thing to prove, and therefore required a strict regulation to require the parties to the agreement to explain and examine the material facts relating to the agreement. This meant that the conditions are met the legitimate agreement as provided for in article 1320 of the Indonesian Civil Code. Unilateral termination of the agreement which meets the elements of the tort is expected to create the consistency of judges in applying the law. It is to create the clarity and legal certainty for the parties involved in an agreement to always have a good faith in carrying out an agreement in the pre- contract phase, contractual phase and post-contract phase.;This thesis examines and assesses unilateral termination of the agreement which is not based on good faith. Good faith is one of the classic principles of contract law also contained in Indonesian Civil Code. The principle of good faith should be applied since pre-contractual phase until post-contractual. In the pre-contractual phase, both parties have an obligation to explain and examine the material facts related to the making of the agreement. In the case of an absence of good faith in the pre-contractual phase has brought the party in an contractual relationship which bound to the agreement, then obviously that the agreement in the future can always be canceled. The ability of a person in an agreement is something that should be examined before signing of the agreement. This type of research is normative juridical, which refers to the rules or norms of law contained in regulations. Violation of the principle of good faith in the process of making the agreement becomes a difficult thing to prove, and therefore required a strict regulation to require the parties to the agreement to explain and examine the material facts relating to the agreement. This meant that the conditions are met the legitimate agreement as provided for in article 1320 of the Indonesian Civil Code. Unilateral termination of the agreement which meets the elements of the tort is expected to create the consistency of judges in applying the law. It is to create the clarity and legal certainty for the parties involved in an agreement to always have a good faith in carrying out an agreement in the pre- contract phase, contractual phase and post-contract phase., This thesis examines and assesses unilateral termination of the agreement which is not based on good faith. Good faith is one of the classic principles of contract law also contained in Indonesian Civil Code. The principle of good faith should be applied since pre-contractual phase until post-contractual. In the pre-contractual phase, both parties have an obligation to explain and examine the material facts related to the making of the agreement. In the case of an absence of good faith in the pre-contractual phase has brought the party in an contractual relationship which bound to the agreement, then obviously that the agreement in the future can always be canceled. The ability of a person in an agreement is something that should be examined before signing of the agreement. This type of research is normative juridical, which refers to the rules or norms of law contained in regulations. Violation of the principle of good faith in the process of making the agreement becomes a difficult thing to prove, and therefore required a strict regulation to require the parties to the agreement to explain and examine the material facts relating to the agreement. This meant that the conditions are met the legitimate agreement as provided for in article 1320 of the Indonesian Civil Code. Unilateral termination of the agreement which meets the elements of the tort is expected to create the consistency of judges in applying the law. It is to create the clarity and legal certainty for the parties involved in an agreement to always have a good faith in carrying out an agreement in the pre- contract phase, contractual phase and post-contract phase.]"

"Perjanjian kredit dibuat harus berlandaskan pada itikad baik dari para pihak sehingga perjanjian dapat dilindungi oleh hukum. Dalam pelaksanaan suatu perjanjian kredit tidak selalu berjalan lancar dan tidak jarang para pihak melakukan pembaharuan perjanjian dan terdapat kreditor lain yang mengajukan debitor pailit. Ini timbul menjadi suatu permasalahan baru berkaitan dengan perjanjian pembaharuan yang telah mendapat putusan actio pauliana akibat debitor pailit namun tidak dilaksanakan. Penelitian ini akan membahas dari segi asas itikad baik serta toeri keadilan yang dikemukan oleh John Rawls dan Aristoteles. Metode penulisan yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah metode penelitian normatif. Analisis yang dilakukan yaitu Terdapatnya suatu perjanjian pembaharuan yang dibuat oleh para pihak yang mana berangkat dari hal yang tidak beritikad baik sebab sudah jelas bahwa debitor sudah tidak mampu melaksanakan kewajibannya dan untuk menghindari tanggung jawab hukum, maka dilakukan pengalihan kepada pihak ketiga. Perikatan yang timbul antara pihak ketiga dengan debitor dilandaskan dengan tindakan tidak beritikad baik yang membuat pihak ketiga tidak terlindungi oleh hukum meskipun unsur-unsur perjanjian telah dipenuhi dalam suatu perjanjian pembaharuan yang dibuat. Upaya kurator untuk membatalkan perjanjian pembaharuan yaitu dengan cara mengajukan gugatan actio pauliana. Perlakuan itikad baik dari para pihak dalam hal perjanjian pembaharuan yang telah dibatalkan oleh gugatan actio pauliana bergantung pada kondisinya masing-masing. Keadilan distributif akan muncul pada saat para pihak, terutama debitor, pihak ketiga, kurator serta kreditor mendapatkan pemenuhan atas hak dan kewajibannya yang diperoleh sesuai dengan porsinya masing-masing yang telah ditentukan, tanpa adanya kekurangan atau kelebihan, meskipun beberapa hal dalam ketentuan hukum Indonesia masih belum terdapat pengaturannya baik secara implisist maupun eksplisit. Contohnya yaitu pihak ketiga yang tidak dapat melakukan pendaftaran piutangnya karena tidak adanya itikad baik dalam pembuatan suatu perjanjian yang pengaturannya tidak sama dengan Amerika Serikat. Pihak ketiga masih diberi kesempatan untuk mendaftarkan piutangnya dengan bantuan debitor.

---

Credit agreement must be based on the good faith of the parties so that it can be protected by law. In the implementation it does not always run smoothly and is not uncommon for parties to renew the agreement with other creditor to avoid bankruptcy. This creates a problem related to the renewal agreement that cannot be implemented because of actio pauliana decision. This research will discuss in terms of the principle of good faith and the theory of justice by John Rawls and Aristotle. The writing method used in this research is normative. The analysis carried out is by seeing a renewal agreement made by the parties which departs not from good faith because it is clear that the debtor is unable to carry out his obligations and avoiding legal responsibility, a transfer is made to a third party. The agreement that is based on an act of bad faith which makes the third party unprotected by law even though the elements of the agreement have been fulfilled in a renewal agreement made. Curator's attempt to cancel the renewal agreement was by filing an actio pauliana lawsuit. The good faith treatment of the parties in the case of a renewal agreement that has been canceled by actio pauliana's lawsuit depends on their respective conditions. Distributive justice will emerge when the parties, especially debtors, third parties, curators and creditors, may obtain fulfilment of their rights and obligations in their respective portion, although some matters in the provisions of Indonesian law are still there is no regulation either implicitly or explicitly. An example is a third party that cannot register its receivables because there is no good faith in making an agreement whose arrangements are not the same as the United States. Third parties are still given the opportunity to register their receivables with the help of debtors."

"Tulisan ini menganalisis bagaimana penerapan dari Prinsip Utmost Good Faith diterapkan di Indonesia terkait penutupan serta klaim dari suatu polis asuransi jiwa kredit di Indonesia. Tulisan ini disusun dengan menggunakan metode penelitian doktrinal. Prinsip Utmost Good Faith telah menjadi suatu prinsip umum yang secara international dipahami dan dipergunakan dalam halnya suatu pengisian formulir pengajuan dari penutupan polis asuransi. Prinsip ini berkembang di Inggris sejak kasus Boehm v Carter yang diputuskan oleh Lord Mansfield. Sejak kasus tersebut adanya kewajiban melakukan pembukaan sebelum kontrak. Perkembangan akan prinsip ini tak luput pula masuk ke Indonesia melalui Kitab Undang- Undang Hukum Dagang yakni pada Pasal 251 yang diadopsi oleh Belanda dari Inggris terkait kewajiban pemberian informasi atau fakta yang sebenar-benarnya diberikan oleh calon tertanggung. Fakta material sifatnya penting untuk diungkapkan kepada Penaggung untuk mengetahui keadaan dari objek asuransi. Hal ini kemudian menciptakan suatu pembebanan yang sifatnya sepihak kepada calon tertanggung untuk memberikan segala informasi atau fakta yang dimintakan oleh calon penanggung tanpa adanya suatu pembatasan jenis fakta apa yang dapat dimintakan serta apa klasifikasi fakta atau informasi yang dimintakan. Konstruksi ini kemudian menciptakan suatu ketidakseimbangan serta prinsip ini dijadikan sebagai suatu alasan penolakan klaim asuransi. Salah satunya di Indonesia adalah pada putusan nomor 98/Pdt.G/2020/PN Skt. Pada putusan tersebut Majelis Hakim luput dalam mempertimbangkan dua hal yakni Polis Asuransi itu sendiri sebagai suatu perjanjian serta KUHD pasal 251. Serta Fakta yang tidak diungkapkan oleh Tertanggung merupakan suatu Fakta Material yang sepatutnya dipertimbangkan pula oleh Majelis Hakim.

---

This article analyzes how Utmost Good Faith principle applied in Indonesia regarding closure and claims of credit life insurance policy in Indonesia. This article prepared using doctrinal research methods. The Utmost Good Faith principle has become a general principle that is internationally understood and used when filling out the application form for closing an insurance policy. This principle developed in England since the Boehm v Carter case decided by Lord Mansfield. Since this case, there has been an obligation to disclose before the contract. The development of this principle has also entered Indonesia through Commercial Code in Article 251 which was adopted by Netherlands from England regarding the obligation to provide information or facts that are actually provided by the prospective insured. Material facts are important to disclose to the Insurer to determine the condition of the insurance object. This then creates a unilateral burden on the prospective insured to provide all information or facts requested by the prospective insurer without any restrictions on the types of facts that can be requested and what classification of facts or information requested. This construction then creates an imbalance and this principle is used as a reason for rejecting insurance claims. One of them in Indonesia is decision number 98/Pdt.G/2020/PN Skt. In this decision, the Panel of Judges failed to consider the Insurance Policy as an agreement and Article 251 Commercial Code and the facts that were not disclosed by the Insured were material facts which should also be considered Panel of Judges."

"Pembahasan dalam penelitian ini terkait dengan kendala dalam Undang-Undang Yayasan khususnya terhadap pengaturan itikad baik dalam kewenangan organ yayasan dan perbandingan ketentuan hukum yang terdapat dalam kasus Yayasan Teungku Fakinah. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk menganalisa kendala dalam Undang-Undang Yayasan yang dapat menyebabkan adanya pelanggaran itikad baik oleh organ yayasan . Metode dari penelitian ini adalah Doktrinal (yuridis-normatif) dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan (statute approach) dan pendekatan kasus (case approach). Kesimpulan dari penelitian ini adalah Undang-Undang Yayasan masih memiliki kendala khususnya yang berkaitan dengan ketentuan mengenai itikad baik dibuktikan dengan adanya kasus Yayasan Teungku Fakinah yang menyebabkan adanya perbedaan pendapat hakim dalam memutus perkara dikarekan tidak adanya pemahaman yang utuh mengenai makna itikad baik.

---

The discussion in this study is related to the obstacles in the Foundation Law; especially, regards to the regulation of good faith within the authority of foundation organs and a comparison of the legal provisions contained in the case of the Teungku Fakinah Foundation. Furthermore, the aim of this study is that to analyze the obstacles in the Foundation Law which can cause violations of good faith by foundation organs. The method of this study was doctrinal (juridical-normative) with a statute and case approach. The conclusion is that the Foundation Law still has obstacles; especially, those relating to provisions regarding good faith. It was proved by the Teungku Fakinah Foundation case which caused differences of opinion among judges in deciding cases due to the lack of a complete understanding of the meaning of good faith."

"ABSTRAKPenulisan hukum ini pada dasarnya melakukan analisa terhadap pengaturan dan penerapan asas itikad baik dan doktrin mitigasi di Indonesia beserta perkembangannya dalam lingkup hukum perjanjian, pengaturan mengenai asas itikad baik dan doktrin mitigasi di Jepang, Prancis, dan Inggris, dan juga analisis mengenai perspektif baru terhadap penerapan doktrin mitigasi dan asas itikad baik di Indonesia melalui perbandingan dengan pengaturan terkait doktrin mitigasi dan asas itikad baik di Jepang, Prancis, dan Inggris. Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini berbentuk Yuridis-Normatif dengan tipe deskriptif. Hasil dari penelitian ini menggambarkan bahwa asas itikad baik dalam hukum perjanjian Indonesia bersumber ketentuan Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata Indonesia. Selanjutnya terkait doktrin mitigasi di Indonesia telah diatur dalam ketentuan berbagai peraturan perundang-undangan Indonesia. Selain itu, penelitian ini juga menggambarkan secara komprehensif mengenai pengaturan terkait asas itikad baik dan doktrin mitigasi dalam hukum Jepang, Prancis dan Inggris yang masing-masing memiliki penerapan dan penasfiran yang berbeda dengan Indonesia. Dengan memperbandingkan ketentuan tersebut ditemukan berbagai perbedaan dan persamaan terkait pengaturan dan penerapan asas itikad baik dan doktrin mitigasi di Indonesia, Jepang, Prancis dan Inggris yang dapat memberikan pemahaman dan penerapan baru terhadap itikad baik dan doktrin mitigasi yang pengertian dan penerapannya masih belum diatur secara definitif sehingga menyebabkan interpretasi yang berbeda-beda. Berdasarkan hasil perbandingan tersebut, Pemerintah Indonesia khususnya bagi perancang dan pembuat Undang-Undang dirasa perlu untuk melakukan perincian terhadap pengaturan-pengaturan asas itikad baik dan doktrin mitigasi di Indonesia agar terdapat suatu pemahaman dan penerapan yang sama."

---

""ABSTRACT"This legal writing analyzes the regulation and application of good faith principle and duty to mitigate doctrine in Indonesia along with its development within the scope of the law of agreement, the regulation of good faith principles and the duty to mitigate doctrine in Japan, France and England, with analysis of new perspectives on it application in Indonesia by comparison with the regulation related to the duty to mitigate doctrine and the principle of good faith in Japan, France and England. The research method used in this research is Juridical Normative with descriptive type. This study illustrate that the principle of good faith in Indonesia 39 s treaty law stems from the Indonesian Civil Code. Furthermore, the duty to mitigate doctrine in Indonesia has been regulated in the provisions of various laws and regulations. This study also describes comprehensively the regulations related to good faith principles and the duty to mitigate doctrine in Japanese, French and English law which each have different application and interpretation with Indonesia. This study found differences and similarities concerning the regulation and application of good faith principles and the doctrine of mitigation in Indonesia, Japan, France and England that can provide new insights and applications in Indonesia whose definition and application is not yet definitively regulated causing different interpretations. Based on the results, the drafters and legislators of Indonesian Law, are deemed necessary to detail the regulations of good faith principles and the doctrine of mitigation in Indonesia in order to have a common understanding and application."

"Di Indonesia asas itikad baik hanya diatur dalam tahap pelaksanaan perjanjian. Namun, permasalahan yang timbul akibat salah satu pihak tidak beritikad baik kerap kali muncul pada tahap prakontrak. Tulisan ini bertujuan untuk membandingkan penerapan asas itikad baik pada tahap prakontrak di Indonesia dan Prancis dengan doktrin promissory estoppel di Malaysia. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian yuridis-normatif dengan metode perbandingan hukum. Penelitian ini menggunakan jenis data sekunder yang dikumpulkan dengan teknik studi kepustakaan dan dianalisis secara kualitatif. Berdasarkan penelitian yang dilakukan, diketahui bahwa di Indonesia asas itikad baik masih didasarkan pada teori klasik hukum kontrak yang membatasi ruang lingkup itikad baik hanya sebatas pada saat pelaksanaan perjanjian sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 1338 ayat (3) KUHPerdata. Sedangkan di Prancis sudah mengikuti teori hukum kontrak modern yang mengatur penerapan asas itikad baik sejak tahap prakontrak sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 1112 Civil Code Prancis 2016. Sedangkan di Malaysia, sebagai negara yang menganut sistem hukum common law, perjanjian prakontrak dilindungi oleh doktrin promissory estoppel melalui resepsi hukum Inggris yang diatur dalam Pasal 3 ayat (1) Civil Law Act 1956.

---

In Indonesia the principle of good faith is only regulated in the implementation stage of the agreement. However, problems arising from one of the parties having bad intentions often arise at the pre-contract stage. This paper aims to compare the application of the principle of good faith at the pre-contract stage in Indonesia and France with the promissory estoppel doctrine in Malaysia. This research is a juridical-normative research using comparative law method. This research uses secondary data types that were collected using literature study techniques and analyzed qualitatively. Based on the research conducted, it is known that in Indonesia the principle of good faith is still based on the classical theory of contract law which limits the scope of good faith only at the time of execution of the agreement as stipulated in Article 1338 paragraph (3) of the Civil Code. Whereas in France it has followed modern contract law theory which regulates the application of the principle of good faith since the pre-contract stage as stipulated in Article 1112 of the 2016 French Civil Code. Meanwhile in Malaysia, as a country that adheres to the common law legal system, pre-contract agreements are protected by the promissory estoppel doctrine through receptions of English law regulated in Article 3 paragraph (1) of the Civil Law Act 1956."

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai penerapan prinsip utmost good faith sebagai salah satu prinsip yang mendasar dan penting dalam perjanjian asuransi, khususnya dengan objek Produk Asuransi yang Dikaitkan Dengan Investasi. Prinsip utmost good faith mengatur bahwa tertanggung dan penanggung harus memberikan informasi yang benar saat membuat perjanjian asuransi. Pada skripsi ini pembahasan dibagi menjadi tiga. Pertama, pembahasan mengenai pengertian asuransi ditinjau dari hukum positif Indonesia. Kedua, pengertian prinsip utmost good faith dalam asuransi ditinjau dari Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Dagang, penerapan prinsip tersebut secara umum, serta dikaitkan dengan PAYDI yang mengkombinasikan antara kebutuhan proteksi serta investasi. Ketiga, pembahasan mengenai pelanggaran prinsip utmost good faith yang dilakukan oleh PT AXA Mandiri Financial Services selaku penanggung dalam perjanjian asuransinya dengan Rais Torodji dan Rachmawaty selaku tertanggung. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis-normatif, dimana data penelitian berasal dari studi kepustakaan dan undang-undang terkait. Hasil penelitian ini menyatakan bahwa prinsip utmost good faith merupakan sebuah prinsip yang harus dilaksanakan dalam setiap perjanjian asuransi. Penanggung bertanggung jawab untuk menyediakan informasi yang jelas dan lengkap bagi Tertanggung mengenai produk asuransi yang dijualnya, khususnya pada PAYDI yaitu informasi mengenai ilustrasi investasi dan risiko investasi. Dalam hal ini, Perjanjian asuransi antara PT AXA Mandiri Financial Service dengan Rais Torodji dan Rachmawaty adalah perjanjian yang batal demi hukum karena penanggung tidak melaksanakan kewajiban penerapan prinsip utmost good faith. Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Jambi No 7/PDT.G.S/2020/PN JMB merupakan putusan yang benar meskipun Majelis Hakim tidak memberikan pertimbangan pada pelanggaran prinsip utmost good faith yang diatur dalam Pasal 251 KUHD sebagai salah satu prinsip asuransi dalam pertimbangan hukumnya.

---

This thesis discusses the application of the principle of utmost good faith as one of the fundamental and important principles in insurance agreements, especially with the object of Investment-Linked Products. The principle of utmost good faith stipulates that the insured and the insurer must provide the correct information when making an insurance agreement. In this thesis, the discussion is divided into three. First, the discussion regarding the meaning of insurance in terms of Indonesian positive law. Second, the understanding of the principle of utmost good faith in insurance is reviewed from the Commercial Code, the application of this principle in general, and related to PAYDI which combines the needs of protection and investment. Third, the discussion regarding the violation of the principle of utmost good faith committed by PT AXA Mandiri Financial Services as the insurer in its insurance agreement with Rais Torodji and Rachmawaty as the insured. This research uses a juridical-normative method, where the research data comes from a study of literature and related laws. The results of this study state that the principle of utmost good faith is a principle that must be implemented in every insurance agreement. The Insurer is responsible for providing clear and complete information to the Insured regarding the insurance products it sells, especially on PAYDI, namely information on investment illustrations and investment risks. In this case, the insurance agreement between PT AXA Mandiri Financial Service and Rais Torodji and Rachmawaty is an agreement that is null and void because the insurer does not carry out the obligation to apply the principle of utmost good faith. Jambi District Court's decision No 7/PDT.G.S/2020/PN JMB is the correct decision even though the Panel of Judges did not give consideration to the violation of the principle of utmost good faith as regulated in Article 251 of the Criminal Code as one of the principles of insurance in its legal considerations."

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai bagaimana penerapan prinsip utmost good faith pada praktiknya dalam kegiatan asuransi kebakaran. Dalam skripsi ini, pembahasan mengenai penerapan prinsip utmost good faith ditinjau berdasarkan sengketa perjanjian asuransi antara Samrida selaku tertanggung dan PT Asuransi Adira Dinamika selaku penanggung. Berdasarkan sengketa antara Samrida melawan PT Asuransi Adira Dinamika tersebut, yang menjadi pokok permasalahan adalah bagaimana penerapan prinsip utmost good faith dalam sengketa klaim asuransi antara Samrida melawan PT Asuransi Adira Dinamika, dan apakah pertimbangan hukum dari Majelis Hakim pada Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat, Pengadilan Tinggi Jakarta, dan Mahkamah Agung dalam sengketa klaim asuransi antara Samrida melawan PT Asuransi Adira Dinamika sudah tepat ditinjau dari hukum asuransi. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif, yaitu penelitian yang meneliti hukum sebagai norma positif dalam sistem perundang-undangan. Hasil yang diperoleh dari penelitian ini adalah bahwa Samrida selaku tertanggung telah melakukan pelanggaran terhadap prinsip utmost good faith dengan melakukan material misrepresentation terhadap PT Asuransi Adira Dinamika selaku penanggung. Selain itu, hakim pada Mahkamah Agung yang memeriksa dan mengadili perkara Samrida melawan PT Asuransi Adira Dinamika telah salah menerapkan prinsip utmost good faith dalam putusannya.

---

This thesis discusses about how utmost good faith principle is applied in fire insurance practice. In this thesis, studies about the application of utmost good faith principle is discussed based on a dispute over the insurance agreement between Samrida as insured versus PT Asuransi Adira Dinamika as insurer. According todispute between Samrida versus PT Asuransi Adira Dinamika, the research questions that will be discussed in this thesis are about how utmost good faith principle is applied in dispute over the insurance claim between Samrida versus PT Asuransi Adira Dinamika, and whether the district court, court of appeals, and supreme court judges have appropriately applied the insurance law in their decisionon dispute over insurance claim between Samrida versus PT Asuransi Adira Dinamika. This thesis uses yuridis normative method of studies, which studies lawas positive norm in systems of law.

The result of this study concludes that Samrida as insured has violated utmost good faith principle by doing material misrepresentation against PT Asuransi Adira Dinamika as insurer. Furthermore, the judges in supreme court who adjudicate dispute between Samrida versus PT Asuransi Adira Dinamika have incorrectly applied utmost good faith principle intheir decision."